I'm no medical expert. But I would submit that abortions, like any medical procedure, are tracked closely for morbidity and mortality, and I assume investigations/autopsies are done when complications result.

I'm not going to argue that abortion is safer than childbirth. However, I will argue that legal abortions performed by qualified practitioners are safer than the illegal, under-the-radar, unregulated back-alley abortions that almost certainly result if abortion were outlawed.
Vidiot | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 5:51 pm | #

Vidiot, the question is not whether the CDC tracks and investigates such complications, but whether the abortion industry acknowledges and works to minimize such complications. Instead, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the like wage aggressive PR campaigns that deny injuries and death can happen at "safe," PP-approved facilities. Instead, they use expressions such as "abortion is safer than childbirth" to excuse such complications.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 6:11 pm | #

Until people regularly see pictures of aborted babies, They/we'll continue to turn a blind eye. The Main Stream Media exercises a rigorous form of censorship in disallowing these images to be published.
Imagine if the MSM had disallowed the publication of photographs depicting the dead and dying inside the Nazi death camps of WWII. I'd guess the result would have been only a fairly mild sort of outrage.

As Thomas Aquinas said, "all evil exists in the mistaking or misusing of the means for the end." While sexual activity increasingly comes to be seen as an end in itself - we'll keep on disposing of the "unfortunate"
consequence of sex by killing the unborn.

I have a slight sympathy for Vidiot's horror at the thought of illegal abortions and their consequence but until we effect a change in our cultural thinking on sex: until we turn it around so we see that at a personal level each of us (including the unborn) has a soul: I see the situation only worsening. We can legislate 'til the cows come home, but we can't legislate the state of anybody's heart.
So do we just give up? No Siree. We must keep on making the point that from conception onward every human being has dignity and the right to be and as the infant Church gained numbers, because of the observation, "See how those Christians love one another" that in the final analysis is how the evil that is abortion will one day be resolved. By the example of faithful loving followers of Christ.
Another Steve | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 6:38 pm | #

I will argue that legal abortions performed by qualified practitioners are safer than the illegal, under-the-radar, unregulated back-alley abortions that almost certainly result if abortion were outlawed.

Of course, that argument can be used for any illegal activity. If you legalize it, you can regulate it and make it safer - eg, legalize cocaine use and you can regulate the quality and distribution channels, resulting in safer cocaine and transactions.
c matt | 07.13.05 - 6:55 pm | #

Yes, c matt -- you can apply the "slippery slope" and "reductio ad absurdam" to just about any argument, but cocaine use is not currently legal. Abortion is.
Vidiot | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 7:21 pm | #

Cocaine used to be legal. Abortion used to be illegal. When that was true, did it matter only that cocaine was safer when legal, and not at all that abortion would be?

(Granting the premise. . . . back-alley abortions were not, after all, performed in back-alleys. They were performed on women who had come in through the back-alley into the doctor's office.)
Mary | 07.13.05 - 8:59 pm | #

complications of abortion are not tracked in the same way that complications of other surgeries are. Part of that is that most of them do not happen in hospitals, nor do they happen in clinics that have undergone any kind of accreditation from outside organization like JCAHCO. Complications that are serious enough to end up in the ICU or the morgue do get reported somewhere, but the 'minor' complications that end up in the local emergency room or doctor's office aren't reported - because there is not any legal requirement that I know of in any state to do so. Each locality has a department of health that lists the mandatory conditions to report. One state is now requiring that physicians and other health care providers report all cases of chicken pox! But complications of abortion, like complications of other 'office procedures' (wart removal, dental extractions, etc) are not required to be reported to anyone anywhere.
Mainstream Ob/Gyn has maintained for several years that a first trimester abortion is safer for the woman than carrying to term and giving birth. I don't know on what basis this claim can be supported or refuted because the data is not being collected properly by anyone anywhere. It could be collected prospectively, but no one is doing the studies.
Retrospective studies from countries where records are kept have shown that the death rate, in the year following an abortion, is higher among the women who aborted than among an age-matched group. This is an interesting statistic that begs to be investigated further - is it a reality? If so, what is the underlying cause? One would think that the 'safe and legal' crowd would be salivating to find studies to support their viewpoint and maybe to increase the 'safe'.
Instead, what I see happening is a situation where instead of getting the facts and disseminating them, it becomes repeat the phrase over and over again until it becomes a truism.
Something else that I find absolutely fascinating and haven't figured out. The same persons who are fervently and religiously pro-choice about abortion are also often among those who favor court ordered cesarean sections for a variety of reasons, oppose a woman's right to choose home birth, oppose a woman's right to be attended in birth in hospital by a midwife, and in some cases will also suggest that all drug-abusing pregnant women should be locked up to prevent them from giving their unborn babies drugs. If you support choice, shouldn't you support choices with which you disagree? I mean, that is what the pro-choice crowd is asking the pro-life crowd to do - to support a choice with which they disagree.
As far as safety of back-alley vs clinic abortions - I would submit that the back alley abortions probably got a bum rap. Not that women didn't die from illegal abortion, but that legal abortion is probably not any safer than the majority of the illegal ones. The human organism is amazingly resilient, and the back alley abortionists who lost patients were usually caught and prosecuted for the murderers they were. The same complications happen nowadays as happened then - it is just that we have antibiotics (given routinely by most abortionists) to prevent the most deadly one - sepsis. Cynthia Gorney wrote a book "Articles of Faith" which is a history of the abortion wars over nearly 20 years in the state of Missouri - it is well worth reading no matter which side of the debate you are on.
alicia | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 10:03 pm | #

This is why safe and proven contraception is important. And why sex education is fundamental. These are valuable strategies in preventing abortions. Sexual behavior has, is, and always will be. You can and will never stop people from engaging in sexual relations. It is part of human nature. So, addressing contraception use is of dire importance. And proper sex education (not abstinence-only programs) is the way to go.
And in relation to the drugs/abortion comparison, it seems to me to be quite ridiculous, because sex is a natural part of being human (most people in the world have or will have sex some time in life), whereas drug use isn't natural (most people in the world have never nor will they ever use drugs). So they are not comparable.
Feral | 07.14.05 - 5:04 am | #

The same persons who are fervently and religiously pro-choice about abortion are also often among those who favor court ordered cesarean sections for a variety of reasons, oppose a woman's right to choose home birth, oppose a woman's right to be attended in birth in hospital by a midwife

This does not match with my experience. IME, the more fervently pro-choice someone is, the more they are for things like allowing home birth.
Kris | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 7:03 am | #

Okay Feral, I see where you're coming from. We're just animals right? We can't help ourselves, right? As soon as the heifer comes on heat, we're like the randy bull that groans and paws the ground before crashing through the fence to copulate.

Well for your information, the animals do have rules regarding sex, albeit built in ones and any class of animal that does an about face so that sex becomes an end in itself instead of the means to that end (contination of the species), is headed for extinction - thank God. That's one scenario where Charles Darwin was dead right.

Western Civilisation moves ever closer to extinction as mindsets like Feral's take centre stage encouraging people to consider themselves merely random products of evolution.

"Safe and proven contraception", what a joke.
Another Steve | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 7:03 am | #

Why is at those who oppose to abortion also oppose to the the methods and strategies that can avoid it?

And Another Steve, take it easy, It's just debate. But to answer you, considering the populations growth over the last centuries, I don't know where you got the idea we're heading to extinction. Take a look at the world population statistics. We're now over the 6 billion mark. Saying contraception and sex ed contributes to human extinction is something out of a sci-fi monty pyton joke. Are you for real?
Feral | 07.14.05 - 7:23 am | #

Feral, read again what I said. I said nothing about the human race being headed for extinction, right? I specifically talked about Western Civilisation. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the places occupied by Western Civilisation will become depopulated, I mean that what we know as Western Culture will die because it will be overrun by a culture that reproduces. It might be Islam. Would you like to see that in the USA? Demographically, it's already happening in Europe. See what's at stake?
Another Steve | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 7:41 am | #

Feral (Is that your real name?)=

I lived through the market-sloganed "back-alley" days of abortion. I even went to see a trial of an abortionist. I learned how she did it, etc. It wasn't nice.

But, while you are using that stupid slogan as a defense for astronomical incidences of abortions, just remember: the number of fatalities is correlated to the number of incidences. We didn't have stats, granted, but we kids in the underground knew who was a virgin and who wasn't, who had an abortion, who went to a "home for unwed mothers."

Abortions of the 1950's, now marketed by the pro-licentious liberal community with the prefix, "back-alley", were nearly nonexistent. For the most part, the poor kept their babies, the rich went to Puerto Rico, where they could get any procedure they wanted. A very few poor _and_ rich went to secretive doctors and others. Dead and botched people were found later. Those that lived (most of them) were transferred to hospitals. Still, the incidences were minimal.

Compare to now, when there are multiply more botched abortions, inadvertently sterilized women, dead babies. Many many more are killed than before. Slogans mislead. Slogans lie.

We don't have enough back-alleys in the _world_ to accommodate all the abortions that are now taking place in the U.S., even at this moment, as I type this.

But you'll go on, Oh Licentious Ones. You can't keep it zipped, so you keep rooting for something dangerous for all.
rrr | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 8:14 am | #

rrr (is that your real name):

rrr said: "But, while you are using that stupid slogan as a defense for astronomical incidences of abortions, just remember: the number of fatalities is correlated to the number of incidences."

What the hell are you talking about?!? Where did you read anything in my post about defending abortion? I have not, do not, and never will defend abortion! I defend the use of contraception as way of avoiding abortion! When you say the number of fatalities is correlated to the number of incidences, that makes my point valid. Avoid unwanted pregnancies and you will reduce the incidence of abortions (and therefore the number of casualties). Contraception is not abortion. It prevents it. And when I talk about contraception, I mean safe contraception freely chosen by the couple, and not forced sterilization. Geez, it's like talking to autists (no offense to autists intended).
Feral | 07.14.05 - 9:20 am | #

"This is why safe and proven contraception is important. And why sex education is fundamental. These are valuable strategies in preventing abortions."

Feral,

Folks who use contraception slowly imbibe the mentality that leads to abortion. The contracepting come to see new life as an enemy to be avoided. If a woman or couple happens to conceive while contracepting and feels in dire enough circumstances -- they will do anything to eliminate that enemy.

Anyone who embraces the idea that contraception is "okay" embraces the notion that children can sometimes be enemies. Couples who would otherwise have used contraception had it been available to them or had they not forgotten, gotten caught up in the moment, or had their method fail, etc., are the ones who end up at abortion mills when they feel themselves in desperate enough circumstances.
Suzanne | 07.14.05 - 9:25 am | #

Suzanne, I feel slightly offended with what you say:

"Folks who use contraception slowly imbibe the mentality that leads to abortion. The contracepting come to see new life as an enemy to be avoided."

I beg to differ. My wife and I have used contraception since we started our sex life together in order to plan our family life. Nevertheless, I do not comply nor do I accept abortion. And never have we perceived a new life as an enemy to be avoided. That is quite a generalized and unfair statement.

"If a woman or couple happens to conceive while contracepting and feels in dire enough circumstances --they will do anything to eliminate that enemy."

This attitude has nothing to do with using contraception. Like I said we have used contraception many times and never have we even considered eliminating your so-called "enemy". Actually, my second daughter was born while we were using contraception (because of our own mistake on taking the pill), and we were happy to bring her on to our family and world. We wouldn't have done it any other way. And I know of many people who have done the same.

"Anyone who embraces the idea that contraception is "okay" embraces the notion that children can sometimes be enemies."

This I have to say (and I'm sorry if I'm being rude) is a completely absurd and offensive statement. I won't even comment this. We do embrace the idea that contraception is okay, abortion is not, and we love our daughters (and all children for that matter). How can you say such a horrendous thing?!

"Couples who would otherwise have used contraception had it been available to them or had they not forgotten, gotten caught up in the moment, or had their method fail, etc., are the ones who end up at abortion mills when they feel themselves in desperate enough circumstances."

Like I've said before, this happened to my wife and I, and never did we consider abortion an option. Nor will we ever. Not everything is black and white, Suzanne.
Feral | 07.14.05 - 9:42 am | #

Feral,

I apologize for offending you. That was not my intent. I hate when these discussions get personal. It becomes difficult for one to make any general statement about the general morality of an act without being offensive.

I am speaking of an overall mentality, not the personal mentality of isolated individuals. Certainly, not about you personally.
Please forgive me if it came across that way.

But what we do speaks its own objective language, apart from what may be our own subjective intentions of our choices. I really do not mean to impart that what I've described above were ever your active thoughts.

However, in an objective sense, the act of contracepting says: I do not want a baby now (some folks would think: "ever"). My circumstances, goals, etc., would make having a child an undesireable consequence of my sexual activity. I will and I must prevent conception.

When one has set up this situation in one's mind, what happens when a person who is really selfish in other ways, or honestly does not see newly conceived life as anything more than "unwanted tissue" that could develop into a child if not "taken care of"?

What happens in the case of the woman who is not in a committed relationship? To the woman whose boyfriend will or has left her? To the woman who wants to finish school? To the woman who is abused? To the woman who believes that carrying this child to term may seriously injure her health?

The folks who are having sex outside of marriage are often unlikely to have the sort of moral fortitude that is necessary to overcome the difficulties of these circumstances in addition to the difficulties of pregnancy alone.

Contraception in marriage says (in an objective sense): "I commit myself to you entirely. I accept and love all of you, except your fertility. I do not want your children, so let's be sure we don't conceive one." It is, in an objective sense, a rejection of the *totality* of one's spouse and what he/she is and/or has to give. Contraception fights against the nature of the act of intimacy.

I am so glad that you embraced your daughter in love and joy. I suspect that many couples who contracept do so when they conceive. But I am speaking of the stage the contraceptive script arranges for countless for other couples who don't believe they can handle the consequences of pregnancy and childbirth.
Suzanne | 07.14.05 - 10:09 am | #

As far as the contraception=fewer abortions line of thought goes, I read somewhere that, had abortion not been legal, as much as 60% of aborted children would never have been conceived. HAs anyone else seen this figure, and if so, have you any comment on it?
Kate B. | 07.14.05 - 10:17 am | #

"Contraception in marriage says (in an objective sense): "I commit myself to you entirely. I accept and love all of you, except your fertility. I do not want your children, so let's be sure we don't conceive one." It is, in an objective sense, a rejection of the *totality* of one's spouse and what he/she is and/or has to give. Contraception fights against the nature of the act of intimacy."

For our family (and friends) that is not the case at all. In our case, contraception in marriage says: "I commit myself to you entirely. I accept and love all of you, without any exception. And because of the love, harmony and well-being of our family, we shall choose apropriately the time to conceive. I want your children, and I want them to be happy and live a healthy, joyful, and well balanced life. So let's be sure we don't conceive one at the wrong time, for risk of making a child live through avoidable difficulties and angst. Nevertheless if it does happen out of the planned time, then we will love, care and cherish our child as much as humanly possible".

"Contraception fights against the nature of the act of intimacy."

Contraception has no influence whatsoever on our act of intamacy. It only adds to our mutual understanding, love and respect for eachother. The proof that there is no relation is that many non-contraceptive using couples' concept of "act of intamacy" is fist-fighting and shouting in front of their children, with no respect for themselves or the "fruit" of their so called "love".
Feral | 07.14.05 - 10:30 am | #

Really, Feral? (And why would you give yourself a name suggesting you've been raised by wolves--unless your posts are meant as an ironic caricature of the liberal position?) Do you have statistics showing that non-contracepting couples beat each other up more than contracepting couples? Or are you just pulling that Air America-style slander from a hat--or a Planned Parenthood Web site? Because I can show you many, many statistics showing that non-contracepting couples are happier--and therefore less violent--than the contracepting kind.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 10:38 am | #

First of all Dawn, the name I use is a nickname given to me (by my friends) because I love camping and my vacations are usually in isolated, hard to reach nature enviroments. Has nothing to do with what you are suggesting.

Second, and Sorry Dawn, but I never said that non-contracepting couples beat each other up more than contracepting couples. Why do you jump to conclusions so agressively? I meant to say that couples who beat each other up have no relation to contraceptive use. The "act of intamacy" is not influenced by contraception, it is influenced by human relations between people. People are what they are regardless of contraception. I also have no relation to PP whatsoever and I do disagree with many of their views. That doesn't change the fact that I beleive contraception is a way to avoid abortions.
Feral | 07.14.05 - 10:54 am | #

And about those statistics, Dawn, come on: no one can prove an exclusive association between happiness (and therefore less violence) and contraception use. Are you kidding, me? There are other factors contributing to happiness. And if you read those statistics carefully, you'll find out just that. Like I said to Suzanne, things aren't only black or white.
Feral | 07.14.05 - 11:06 am | #

"Or are you just pulling that Air America-style slander from a hat--or a Planned Parenthood Web site?"

Geez, talk about paranoia!!! Why is it that everytime someone rings a different bell than yours, they have to be automatically connected to PP. For cryin' out loud, Dawn, take it easy. We do't all have to walk the same two ways: your way or the PP way! I walk my own way.
Feral | 07.14.05 - 11:12 am | #

Feral all 3 of my 1st pregnancies were on one form of BC or another. My first on BC and condoms-she nearly 11. The second was condoms faom and some little square that you fold up and insert-He is nearly 9. The third was on Depo-twins and they depo killed both of them.

I now use NFP and you know how many times Ive gotten pregnant and didnt either want it desperatly or know it might happen. Exactly none. You know how many of my babies have died on NFP. Exactly none.

I am pregnant right now because breastfeeding infertility was over and the age between my youngest boy and "the new baby" was getting dangerously close to 3 years. 2 years or 2 and 1/2 are OK but my little ones that were born 3 years apart were lonly for a long time including my youngest little boy who is still not a part of the Pack. My daughter has 5 years between her oldest sister and herself.

What we need is acceptance that fetility and sex are virtually inseperable.One more thing- NFP has none of the freaky side effects of BC. You cannot tamper with one bodily funcion without wreaking havoc on another(or many). Fertility included.
josephine | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 11:12 am | #

So sorry for that spelling. Ohh what Id give for a edit function.
josephine | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 11:21 am | #

Josephine - I'm sorry the comments system I use doesn't allow editing. As the moderator, I'm allowed to edit comments, and sometimes when I have a spare moment, I go into some of them and fix the spelling.

Your comments clearly come from the heart, and I appreciate your making them even when you're not able to edit them.

If you ever feel you'd like to have the chance to spellcheck something before posting it, the way to do it is to write the comment in Microsoft Word (or another word-processing program), spellcheck it there, and then cut-and-paste it into the comments box. You can cut and paste by doing control-A (or Apple key-A if you're using a Mac) to select all, control-C (or Apple key-C) to copy, and control-V (or Apple key-V) to paste.

Incidentally, I often take advantage of my ability to go back to my own comments and correct spelling mistakes. It happens to everyone.

Lastly, if you ever post any comment that you'd _really_ like changed or removed, you can always let me know by posting another comment or sending me an e-mail. I only ask that you not request this too often, as it takes me time to go back and change comments.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 1:21 pm | #

Hi... oh, back out of deep lurk again.

I have a question related to abortion:

If abortion becomes illegal, should women who then have an abortion be prosecuted for a crime?

What would that crime be and what should the punishment be?

Thanks in advance for your consideration of my question.
libby the blue-tailed liberal | 07.14.05 - 1:53 pm | #

Well, from what I know, some countries where abortion is illegal and considered a crime it, often considered a "crime aginst life" and women who carry them out (as well as the clinics, doctors, nurses or others who perform the abortion) are prosecuted and sentenced to time in jail (if found guilty, of course). The sentences may vary from country to country. I'm not sure how it would be here.
Feral | 07.14.05 - 3:02 pm | #

Faithful hearts, sensitive hearts,
Who accuse lightfooted Love,
Cease your cruel complaining!
Is it a crime to change?
If love has wings,
Is it not to fly?
Is it not to fly?
Is it not to fly?
Seth | 07.14.05 - 3:23 pm | #

Libby, I haven't researched answers to your question, so I'm reluctant to give a definite opinion. I do feel, from what I've read on the After Abortion blog, from Silent No More, and especially from Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae, that the crime of performing an abortion or otherwise aiding and abetting an abortion is far different from that of having one. Those who do perform, aid, or abet them should therefore be prosecuted far more severely.

So, based on my limited knowledge of the subject--and this could change as I read more--I believe that if abortion is criminalized, there should be penalties for women having them, but those penalties should be more on the order of counseling. The hard time should be done by abortionists and their aides.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 3:43 pm | #

"In our case, contraception in marriage says..."

Feral, you can say "in our case" -- etc., but it is true that in every case fertility is either a withholding or an attack on the natural fertility processes.

"Contraception has no influence whatsoever on our act of intimacy."

One may not be aware of the effects that contraception has on marriage, but they are there. You might have a great marriage -- but it will be all the moreso if you give yourselves entirely to one another, without fear of life. Otherwise, the greatest expression of marital love, which has the inherent power to give life (a tremendous!, awesome! power) is merely an act of pleasure. Coming together and expressing love through mere pleasure with no potency? You might as well be sharing an ice cream cone. (Yes, I'm exaggerating, but I hope you can see my point.) Openness to life constitutes the greatest vulnerability, and calls for the very deepest love.

"The proof that there is no relation is that many non-contraceptive using couples' concept of "act of intimacy" is fist-fighting and shouting in front of their children, with no respect for themselves or the "fruit" of their so called 'love.'"

I don't know of any non-contraceptors who fit your non-sequitur reasoning in favor of contraception. At least, not any couples who don't contracept for the *right* reasons.

Perhaps there are some folks who don't contracept and are irresponsible parents and selfish people. Their non-contracepting didn't cause that though -- there are other selfishness producing lifestyles that influence behaviour. But it's the irresponsiblity and selfishnessthat needs to be corrected, not non-contraception use, because that's not the cause of their behavior.

Feral, on the level of faith, I don't believe there is ever a "wrong time" for a child. ("Sorry, honey, you were just born at the wrong time.") I don't feel myself capable of standing in judgment of what is ultimately the decision of the Author of life and death. From a human standpoint, I may not see the wisdom in bringing a new little one into the world in certain circumstances, but my wisdom is not omniscient.

In really dire circumstances, natural methods of avoiding conception might be understandable, but even then, one has to be open to God's plan. I try to keep in mind that God's objective is different from mine. His objective is to get souls into Heaven, the children He sends are a part of that plan. A new life might mean suffering and hardship, but suffering is the stuff virtue and redemption are made of.
Suzanne | 07.14.05 - 4:38 pm | #

Dawn,

Thanks for the tip. Id have never thaught of doing that and the cutting and pasting.. Go figure?
josephine | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 5:09 pm | #

Feral and libby,

I would never, not even if hell froze over, support throwing a woman in jail for aborting. My sister had one and has found herself in a prison of her own design. Why in the name of God would we add to her distress by jailing her for it? Its one thing to be a desperate woman seeking a solution to a pregnancy, especially in the first months. Its quite another to be a disinterested doctor willing to scrape the kids out with a steady hand knowing what the child will look like and not really caring for it.. Or the woman for that matter. Toss the doctor in jail. Offer the woman grief councelling and a support so the kids she has dont suffer any ill effects.
josephine | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 5:18 pm | #

Thanks for your considered responses.

Here's a further question, though: in my proposed future scenario, a woman has an abortion and expresses no regrets. Is she prosecuted by the same law that the doctor is? Jail time? More than that?

And her boyfriend or husband or one-time lover goes with her to the abortion provider, has full knowledge of the abortion and supports her having it. Where does he stand in the eyes of the law?

Thanks again.
libby the blue-tailed liberal | 07.14.05 - 6:15 pm | #

Again, I don't know enough on the subject to have a strong opinion, but I don't believe jail should be the first penalty option for a woman who had an abortion, and I am not certain of the circumstances under which it should be an option, if at all.

Certainly anyone who aids and abets a woman in procuring an abortion should be jailed, and that goes for the boyfriend. The boyfriend won't suffer in the same way that the woman will from having the abortion. Penaltywise, it's the difference between a drug dealer and a drug user.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 6:37 pm | #

Yes, Josephine, I completely agree with you that I would also never support throwing a woman in jail for aborting. And I also agree with your proposed solution.

Libby, I beleive that in your proposed scenario the "boyfriend or husband or one-time lover" should also be responsible. Because it takes two to tango, and would be a blatant gender discrimination to only hold the woman responsible if she had indeed the support of her partner. As you know, there are many women who are pressed to abort by their partners (sometimes against their will), and they too should be held responsible.
Feral | 07.14.05 - 6:40 pm | #

Anyway, and concerning Dawns comparison to the drug user/dealer situation, I feel the comparison is innadequate. These issues are not comparable, no matter what you may say. Even if you're only talking penaltywise.
Feral | 07.14.05 - 6:48 pm | #

Dawn, obviously you have a very, very well-defined opinion about abortion and I understand your position as you've stated it about abortion providers.

So, correct me if I'm wrong: you equate abortion with murder, yes? Then is a woman who has an abortion a muderer?

Further, I don't know how you stand on capital punishment, so, do you support capital punishment for murderers? If yes, then, if abortion is deemed illegal, wouldn't she be open to prosecution as a muderer?
libby the blue-tailed liberal | 07.14.05 - 7:03 pm | #

Libby, I don't appreciate your trying to paint me in a corner.

Yes, abortion is murder. But the law acknowledges different degrees of murder. Those degrees include differences in intent, including whether the person realizes the full effect of his or her actions. The law also treats murderers differently according to their mental state. A woman who desires to kill her own baby may very likely be in a highly anxious and stressed-out mental state.

Also, the law acknowledges whether murderers are pressured to commit their crimes, and certainly women who have abortions are very often under pressure from the child's father or from family members.

I would appreciate it if you would visit the Silent No More site and read why women who have had abortions are campaigning to tell of the damage it does to women and society at large.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 7:13 pm | #

Libby, you can't have shades of grey when it comes to taking human life: if it's ending human life - well go figure. In many or most pagan/pre Christian societies, infanticide was practised to conserve resources. The elderly were also considered expendable. In Western culture, I doubt we will ever return to the times when things like abortion or homosexuality will be legislated against. I think the time is not too far away when legislators will wash their hands totally of all sexual matters - especially rape and child sex (same thing anyway), and further, matters like euthanasia for children and adults will become a matter of course. Every slippery slope we've entered in the last hundred years has steepened and the velocity of the slide has increased alarmingly. It's a very expensive business maintaining law enforcement and ultimately money will be the deciding factor in what a newly Pagan Society will tolerate. The tips of the ears of "anything goes" can already be seen.

The real question of whether a woman who aborts is a criminal is hardly relevant in today's moral climate. What is important is her perception of sin. Without Judeo-Christianity, there can be no such thing as sin and as American fiction writer Flannery O'Connor said, "Redemption is meaningless unless there is cause for it in the actual lives we live."
So yes I am being a Jeremiah. Things are going to get a lot worse. When sound was added to cinematic film back about 80 years ago, I think it was entertainer Al Jolson who said those words, "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
Another Steve | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 7:45 pm | #

Another Steve: if the real question of a woman who aborts is a criminal is not relevant, then why would any discussion of changing the legality of abortion matter? Indeed, I bring it up because if we get to the point where abortion is illegal, the next question is just this: what is the nature of the crime and how is the law to be enforced?

Dawn, I've been to Silent No More; thanks for the link.

The line of questioning I take are questions that I see logically extending from a possible suspension of legal abortion. What questions do others find when they contemplate this?

I think I'm asking provocative questions of a thoughtful and provocative writer and the thoughtful and passionate people who post here. Would we not, possibly --gasp!-- come to some sort of agreement or new understanding through exploring such issues? Who knows where it might lead.

Would illegalizing abortion lead to a situation of an unenforceable law on a state-by-state level? Would it lead to prosecution as a crime for the woman? for the person(s) who performed it? for the woman's partner?
libby the blue-tailed liberal | 07.14.05 - 10:47 pm | #

"why would any discussion of changing the legality of abortion matter?"

Libby, it most certainly matters because only by contesting the notion that the unborn child has no right to life, can the opposite case be put AND it MUST be put because otherwise people will have given up defending the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. We're already a fair way down the slippery slope I mentioned earlier so who would be next on the unwanted list of human beings? The elderly, cripples, mental defectives? And who are the Nazi like eugenists who will compile the lists of who is unwanted and of course where is it all going to stop?

"Oh but Doctor, I don't want a red headed kid with freckles. Can't we just get rid of 'it' and have another crack or can you design my baby to fit this list I have here."

Don't scoff, that's the sort of thing we're coming to.

I think if the US Govt or the Supreme Court or whoever created legislation outlawing abortions, it would be a repeat of the Prohibition era. Abortion is demonstrably wrong in every case but the likelyhood of it being outlawed is pratically non existent. It's the public mindset we're up against.
Pax
Another Steve | Homepage | 07.15.05 - 1:46 am | #

Dear Libby- I love you. Thanks so much for telling your bent, but also asking such sincere questions. I am a moral conservative, but I know that abortion bans are unenforceable. (This does not mean I get an elated whoosh in my heart when I hear the words "Roe vs Wade", nor will I ever march for it, nor does "Jane Roe" want it. She was used, and she hates what happened!) Nevertheless, abortion is murder, but bans are unenforceable. Why? Because we can't monitor the perpetration of that sin. But Jesus said that if any of us hate in our heart, that is also equivalent to murder. And no one can monitor that sin either. I agree with Dawn, who suggests that we emphasize the wrongfulness of the act of abortion, that we give women counseling to help them know the wrongfulness, and also to help them deal with unexpected pregnancy, that we love them and try to help them. I also agree that we should hold to blame doctors who perform the act, in the same way as Kevorkian was held guilty for killing helpless and depressed folk who didn't want to live. Help the victims, punish the real perpetrators.
rrr | Homepage | 07.15.05 - 12:44 pm | #

Jail abortion doctors, and fine post-abortive women the current cost of a college education. Use the money to send kids being kicked out of adoption homes to college. How's that sound?
Kate B. | 07.15.05 - 12:52 pm | #

Kate B,

Many woman wouldnt have the money.

rrr,

There are plenty of young folk who disagree with the idea that we will never get the abortion issue back under control in this country. We have post aborted mother sisters and friends. We were forced to abort as teens or watched our friends get dragged off to a clinic and were a bit miffed about it. All that fuss about young woman taking thier choices for granted.. What if we're not taking it for granted? What if we are handing it back with a hardy no thanks.Woman under the age of 30 are more prolife than the ones over 40..
Josephine | Homepage | 07.15.05 - 5:10 pm | #

"Woman under the age of 30 are more prolife than the ones over 40."

I'm sure you're right Josephine but are there enough of them to influence the politicians? And then of course we need the under 30s men to come on board. And no I'm not advocating giving up the fight just because it seems like some sort of pipe dream. After all with God anything is possible. But not only should we be focussing on the right to life for the unborn: we should also be raising the more grave matter of what abortion does in the heart of those who espouse it: i.e. the danger their souls are in. Ultimately it's all about Salvation isn't it?
Another Steve | Homepage | 07.15.05 - 5:41 pm | #

Libby,

Intent and for-knowledge mean everything. If he is pushing her to the crime, prosecute the boyfriend. If he knows its a baby its murder if not manslaughter.

I am right now pregnant with my 8th child(including the 2 babies I lost on depo)and the shakiness of the first trimester is horrid for some of us. I am not sure if you have ever been pregnant but when your dehydrated from puking and have a ton of hormones running through you its hard to think. And the fatigue.. Ohh my gosh that I woke up this morning at 5 to get my husband out of bed and make his breakfast is a miracle. I have truly awaken in the middle of the night and shook him awake to comfort me because I had some irrational nightmare or another(which might be why he is waking late).

Its hard when youve gotten the shock that your pregnant. Esp if you were contracepting and totally didnt think it could happen. I can honestly see how that shock combined with an urgent need to make things the way they were could cause woman to do things they didnt want to do or wouldnt have done had they had time to think about. And comfort from the father is a big issue.

I could not have had any of my kids without his support. I get really sick when Im preggy and it involved telecommuting and trips to the ER for him. He has to be there. The kids and I need him. Its why getting married before your your having sex is so important. And when you get married plan to stay that way.

As for the woman who has no regrets. Give it time. Most woman, when the crisis that meant she couldnt have the baby is over, have regrets. I admit I have several drug addicted aunts, one who is the 2nd largest provider of meth in ark, who have had several abortions. They say they dont regret it but they sure act out of it. They have never been outside of the crises long enough to give it thaught. Some woman keep themselves activly in a series of crisis' in order to keep the abortion OK.

My mother was one of those people. We werent allowed to be worth anything cause then the babies she aborted would have been of value. My mother, amongst a dozen different cruel and stupid things, used to throw my report cards away so I would get continual Fs for not returning them signed. She got me suspended by eating a box of chocolates I was supposed to be selling. And she did it all on purpose. I cant help but think both the large and small cruelties she dished out were to make us feel worthless. And that in turn was to reinforce her reasons for abortions.

Do I support jailing her for aborting my siblings? No. She is a sick woman. She needs help not jail.
Josephine | Homepage | 07.15.05 - 5:45 pm | #

Thanks, all, again, for considering my questions.
libby the blue-tailed liberal | 07.15.05 - 5:59 pm | #

Re. Contracepting vs. non-contracepting couples. Is the RC position that NFP is not contraception? That using NFP means that one is open to children in a way a person using a condom is not? I can't buy that - both couples would be trying to have sex without getting pregnant. What is the difference?

If contraception is wrong then so is NFP.
Sarah | 07.15.05 - 7:12 pm | #

NFP is not contraception because contraception prevents conception when having sexual intercourse. By definition, if you are not having sexual intercourse, you are not using contraception.

One can, of course, use NFP wrongly, to prevent children when you have no reason not to conceive, but it's not contraception.
Mary | 07.15.05 - 7:27 pm | #

Okay, so my use of "contraception" is perhaps wrong there. But isn't the effect the same - both couples are having sex and deliberately trying not to get pregnant? Where is the real difference? I just don't get how NFP users can say they are doing something so different than those who use condoms or some other barrier method. Both are preventing pregnancy while still having sex.
Sarah | 07.15.05 - 8:21 pm | #

Josephine, after reading your last comment I confess to feeling very inadequate and humbled. All I can say is 'thank you'.
Another Steve | Homepage | 07.15.05 - 9:04 pm | #

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: contraception changes the 'meaning' (in an ontological sense) of sex in a way NFP cannot. If that isn't clear (and I understand if it isn't), consider this: a contracepting couple having sex has changed the sex act - either by changing the chemical and/or biological makeup of the participants, as with a hormonal method or sterilization, or by introducing a barrier. In these cases, sex is not what it was intended to be - a total self-gift.

A couple using NFP to postpone conception does absolutely nothing to the sex act. There are no barriers. There are no chemicals. Their bodies are acting as they were designed to act - including the female body, which was designed to be infertile at that point in time. Rather than imposing their will on their bodies and on the sexual act, the NFP using couple is submitting their will and co-operating with the design of their bodies and of the sexual act, in a full and total gift of each to the other.

Seems pretty clear to me.

And, of course, the Church teaches that children are so high a good that even a morally licit form of family planning should not be used to avoid conception unless there is grave reason, and should never be used with the intent to never have children, which is why NFP couples usually speak of 'postponing' conception, rather than 'preventing' conception.
Kate | Homepage | 07.15.05 - 9:09 pm | #

Incidentally, if you are really interesting in the 'whys' (and not just interested in objecting) than I would advise getting your hands on some materials that explain the Church's teachings. Christopher West's "The Good News about Sex and Marriage" has a good, basic explanation.
Kate | Homepage | 07.15.05 - 9:12 pm | #