i have known a lot of people that were adopted or the children of teenage parents.
True adoption is painful but it is better than being dead. Not all teenage parents end up on welfare.

why on earth can't people take responsibility for their sexual behavior? Thats what the right for abortion is about. People avoiding the natural results of promiscuity.
lar | 08.01.07 - 3:56 am | #

The juxtaposition of Paul's intense expression of her own remembered "pain" and her devastating and absurd denial-comment on fetal pain ("I have no idea what that means) is actually deeply revelatory of an underlying truth: the utter lack of empathy and compassion that characterize the abortion industry and its practitioners. It's...all...about...me.
Brenda from Flatbush | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 4:57 am | #

Is it me, or does this woman sound like a sociopath?
Andy | 08.01.07 - 7:25 am | #

Pro-choice feminist have always preached their double standard. In the world of work and career, women are told to grow up, to display mature self-discipline and self-control. Women are told to persevere and cope with unexpected obstacles by learning to tough out the setbacks in life and personal achievement. But this mature ethic of commitment and self-discipline is discounted in the domain of sexuality and abortion.
Instead we are told that women are too weak to endure the emotional pain of adoption. When an unexpected preganacy occurs, women are now told they are not strong enough or masters of enough resources to avoid killing the fetus.
Demisme | 08.01.07 - 7:42 am | #

Andy, all of us pro-aborts are sociopaths. :)

Had I gotten pregnant as a teen, even through non-consensual sex (and that's not so far-fetched, because I knew two girls who were date-raped), my parents would have "forced" me to give birth and put the baby up for adoption. They would have used whatever means necessary, including confinement to an institution for my "own protection." Is this really the scenario everyone wants? You are welcome to it -- I want no part of it.
L. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 9:34 am | #

L,
I do not think that Dr. Paul was referring to her own confinement at the hands of others. She just meant that she did not WANT to do it, but had to in her circumstances.

I am a person who is unbendingly in support of the welfare of women and children. I also believe that abortion ends a human life and is not, in the long run, good for women.

I shudder at the hypothetical scenario you propose. I do not think that "nightmare possibilities" are a good enough justification for laws which are otherwise harmful.

One long-term goal of those opposed to abortion should be is to create and sustain structures of support that ensure that women do not have to suffer alone, locked away, in terror at the crucible of life they are in.
corita | 08.01.07 - 9:42 am | #

Andy,
I thought the same thing when I read her response, "I have no idea."

Not because I think you have to be a sociopath to be an abortion doctor. But because it seems to reflect a break in the consciousness; an inability to relate one reality to another.

Yes, Brenda fF, I think that is the major prerequisite for empathy.
corita | 08.01.07 - 9:45 am | #

"And so I carried a pregnancy to term against my will and was forced to adopt the child out and it was an incredibly painful experience for me."

There is an adult now, close to forty years of age, who will find out that his/her biological mother wanted him/her dead so much, she made it her life mission to kill others that were in his position as a defenseless unborn child.

The scenerios where tens of millions of unborn american children to die at the hands of abortionist is better?

Pro-feminists always bring up date-rape, but why do you think date rape occurs so fequently, because men get the message that sex is suppose to happen on a date or at a party where there is drinking as something recreational and it is up to the woman to be responsible for any consequences.
Renee A. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 10:13 am | #

... because men get the message that sex is suppose to happen on a date or at a party where there is drinking as something recreational and it is up to the woman to be responsible for any consequences.

This statement makes me so angry that even after counting to ten, I don't think I am capable of typing a civil response to it.

One long-term goal of those opposed to abortion should be is to create and sustain structures of support that ensure that women do not have to suffer alone, locked away, in terror at the crucible of life they are in.

I think abortion should remain legal, and I believe I might even have one myself if I were to conceive again. But I agree 100% with what Corita said above.
L. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 10:26 am | #

I do not think all pro-aborts are sociopaths, but I agree with Andy that this woman does invite the label for the reason corita suggests.

I do think that most pro-aborts are deluded insomuch as they have convinced themselves that a horrible act grounded in selfishness is really a morally ambivalent act grounded in misfortune, or even mercy. Brenda nails their real mindset, I'm afraid: "It's...all...about...me." But they can't see themselves that way, so they convince themselves its not the case.

I certainly feel for teen-age girls in situations described by L. Their choice to abort their own child is often a function of fear which impairs their ability to think and choose clearly. These girls are not so much pro-aborts as the victims of pro-aborts.

And finally, the notion that coercing a girl to take a baby to term so that she can give it up for adoption is more damaging to the girl than allowing her to kill her own child is chilling to say the least.
Mike Petrik | 08.01.07 - 10:32 am | #

One general observation: A slickly produced video like that must have cost PPNYC a hefty sum of money.

I guess, as the old saying goes, "You've got to spend money to make money."

And boy, does Planned Parenthood know how to make money.
John Jansen | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 10:42 am | #

...coercing a girl to take a baby to term so that she can give it up for adoption is more damaging to the girl than allowing her to kill her own child is chilling to say the least.

The abortion debate is so often framed in terms of "girls," and its poster child is the unwed pregnant teenager -- yet teens acoount for only about a fifth of abortions in the U.S. And about 60% of abortions are among women who already have had one or more children.

I find it equally chilling that women like me would be legally compelled to continue pregnancies under all circumstances, no matter how those pregnancies resulted, no matter what our particular medical histories or risks to our health.

It is one thing to discourage abortion and support women who choose to continue their unplanned pregnancies. It is quite another to remove it forever as an option, from every situation.
L. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 10:47 am | #

Dawn,

I've been reading your blog for a while and applaud all of the work that you do -- thank you.

I would like to make a suggestion, as I know that you are in a position of leadership and language means so much.

I suggest using the term "single parent" as opposed to "unwed mothers." "Unwed" seems to be laden with religious judgementalism (which I know you do not intend), and no matter what the circumstances of conception are, I believe every mother deserves a term that gives more respect to her decision to give life to her child. It also allows for the single fathers who give so much to raise their children to be included as well.

God Bless,
Cassandra
Cassandra | 08.01.07 - 10:50 am | #

Medically necessary abortion has always been available, so far as I know. So, if your life or health were seriously threatened, L, I don't think you would have a problem obtaining one. But the bigger issue-- and the one I have with your earlier "nightmare" scenario is that it is false. Real life doesn't work that way.

If, by some miracle, elective abortion were made illegal and the expectation and reality were that women and girls who become pregnant give birth, that would be that. The options would all include a living infant (except, of course, in the case of miscarriage). Prior to Roe v Wade, the number of women locked up to prevent them from seeking illegal abortions was rather minor. I daresay, the number was not even a statistical blip. And, yes, there were illegal abortions but the number was miniscule, compared to the number of pregnancies that went to term, wanted or unwanted. The weight of societal or cultural expectations is usually the deciding factor, both in what we do and how we feel about the options in any given situation.
Colleen | 08.01.07 - 11:06 am | #

So, if your life or health were seriously threatened, L, I don't think you would have a problem obtaining one.

Actually, while one doctor of mine said I should definitely avoid another pregnancy, another doctor (a Catholic doctor) said that I "could have four or five more c-sections with no trouble." Except for extreme cases presenting immediate risks, there will always be disagreement on what constitutes "medically necessary," and what an "acceptable" level of risk is and how to assess it.
L. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 11:13 am | #

Cassandra, why is it judgmental to call a single mother an "unwed mother"? It seems more judgmental to me to assume that it makes no difference to a child whether his or her mother is wed or not. "Unwed" suggests that a child is lacking something important when his or her mother is not married. That is the truth.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 11:21 am | #

I want my doctor to show competence and clinical compassion.

"Empathy" I can do without - if it is tied to private moral reckoning.
Jody Tresidder | 08.01.07 - 11:30 am | #

"(Her language and manner does not suggest that anyone was holding a gun to her head. Most likely, she was simply eager to get into medical school unencumbered by an out-of-wedlock kid.) It was 'incredibly painful.'"

Dawn, the one thing I would question here is the implication that there's something selfish about giving a child up for adoption. I don't think you intended it, but the line above reads that way.

Whatever your future goals, I think it's both less selfish, and more realistic, to allow your child to be adopted, than to try to raise a child outside marriage. The culture of deliberate single motherhood has done much harm, as much as the casual sex culture. If there's one thing that anti-abortion people (and I am one) should be trying to do, it's to decrease the "stigma" that attaches to giving children up for adoption.
alias clio | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 11:32 am | #

Alias Clio, there's nothing selfish about giving a child up for adoption. There is, however, something selfish about claiming to be "forced" into it when one simply had priorities other than motherhood.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 11:38 am | #

Q. When in the course of the abortion does the fetus -- does fetal demise occur?
A. I don't know for sure. I certainly know that if I deliver intact and collapse the skull that demise occurs.

If one delivers intact (aka birth) and collapses the skull after delivery, that's no longer "abortion" or "termination of pregnancy," but infanticide.
Bender | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 11:49 am | #

There is, however, something selfish about claiming to be "forced" into it when one simply had priorities other than motherhood.

In other words, she should have raised her baby herself? If you claim the motivation for one action is "selfish," how should she have acted "unselfishly?"

Regarding use of "unwed" -- I've made the point in comments on another post that some single parents are widows/widowers. The term "single parent" includes them as well, and is useful to describe any family headed by only one parent.

Also, "unwed" would raise a few questions about what is meant by "wed," since some states recognize common-law marriages. Also, some of us are legally married but considered "unwed" by our religions.
L. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 11:53 am | #

As the father of two adopted children, I have watched two young women struggle with and grieve over allowing their children to be adopted. Taking those children home from the hospital and saying "goodbye" to their birth mothers was one of the toughest things I've ever had to do because of the pain I know they felt. They are heroes to my wife and I, primarily because what they did was so selfless and loving.

Every day I give thanks to God for the sacrifice they made. Watching my little ones grow up in a stable home out of the dangers and problems I know they would have encountered otherwise, and knowing very well that they could have easily been slaughtered in utero brings up so many emotions it's hard to express.

Abortion is an evil, selfish, destructive act that helps no one and brings only death and harm to those involved. Yes, I completely understand that many young girls are more or less coerced into making this "choice," and they are as much victims as their children. The main perpetrators of the evil, selfishness and destruction involved are the abortionists and those that encourage this vile act.

Adoption is a loving, selfless act and women that choose it should be given love, support and encouragement. Yes, it involves pain, but most good things in life do. These women are true heroes.
c | 08.01.07 - 11:53 am | #

I had an unintended pregnancy when I was a teenager.

Those pesky sperm cells randomly floating around on the street and accidently running into a woman's egg.
Scott W. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 11:57 am | #

Well, L., I didn't use the term "unwed", and neither did Dawn, in her response to me. Nor did I refer in blanket terms to single parenthood. I referred to "the culture of deliberate single motherhood". I am conscious of the differences you are seeking to make. So, it seems to me, are most of the other commenters here.
alias clio | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 12:08 pm | #

Alias Clio, Dawn used it in her response to Cassandra, and it was that conversation to which I was contributing. I believe "single parent" to be a more useful, inclusive term, though if people want to refer to the single sub-set of "unwed" parents, that's fine with me, as long as they're clear about what they mean by it.

Sorry, I'll try to be more clear about which comments I'm addressing.
L. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 12:13 pm | #

Adoption is a loving, selfless act and women that choose it should be given love, support and encouragement.

I believe most of us "pro-aborts" agree with this. And I personally think women who get pregnant through nonconsensual sex and decide to carry to term are heroes.
L. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 12:15 pm | #

Now maybe there’s something wrong with me genetically, both my father and brother were volunteer firemen who rushed into burning buildings to save people. In fact, once I went into a burning building to save someone. So let’s just say there’s something wrong with me but I would rather die trying to save the life of a child then allow it to die, for any reason. For my own children, I would volunteer to take their place in Hell if that were theologically possible. How can anybody condone taking a 20 week old infant that cries, that breaths, that squirms in the cold hospital air and crushing its head with a pair of forceps? I don’t care how the baby started out, that’s wrong.
John J. Simmins | 08.01.07 - 1:13 pm | #

I have to agree with you John. For anyone - man or woman - to be able to say "I'd rather have my child suffer and die rather than suffer myself" is beyond my comprehension. Since having an abortion is killing your child and since fetal pain is a scientifically proven fact, that statement is *exactly* what a woman is saying when she says "I know what abortion is and I would have one if ." The same goes for any man who would encourage a woman to abort a child he fathered.
c | 08.01.07 - 1:27 pm | #

the work that we do here is really helping to save lives

I think she means "lifestyles."


I have no idea what that means.

I've worked with people who get so wrapped up in their professional mode of thinking that they forget that there are common understandings of things like "fetus experiencing pain," but I got more of an impression of willful denial of an inconvenient fact, of hiding behind his job, than simple sociopathy. Maybe it's a fine line for someone so inclined in the first place.


It was "incredibly painful."

When I read that part, I got the image of Dr. Paul feeling pain when touching her knee and exclaiming that her leg was injured, while instead it turned out that her hand was broken.
Ed Pie | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 1:31 pm | #

Wow, the introductory comment by Paul is one of the most self centered world outlooks I've ever seen in print. I don't think she's capable of feeling anything outside of herself.
Yeoman | 08.01.07 - 2:38 pm | #

For anyone - man or woman - to be able to say "I'd rather have my child suffer and die rather than suffer myself" is beyond my comprehension.

Most women do not have late-term abortions as a "lifestyle" choice, but in cases where a pregnancy has gone horribly wrong. The vast majority of "convenience" abortions occur in the first trimester.
L. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 2:47 pm | #

I would rather die trying to save the life of a child then allow it to die, for any reason.

Good for you. But not of all us feel this way, or would act the same way in all circumstances -- nor do I think anyone should be legally compelled to do so.
L. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 3:07 pm | #

"Good for you. But not of all us feel this way, or would act the same way in all circumstances -- nor do I think anyone should be legally compelled to do so."

Agreed. The law has always distinguished between the duty to affirmatively assist one in need of help (applies only in very limited cases) versus the duty to not affirmatively cause physical harm to someone (applies broadly except as to the unborn). It is worth noting that the wholesale exclusion of the unborn from the latter maxim was not an organic legal development, but a product of unwarranted judicial fiat.

While the law rightly, in my opinion, does not generally require one to risk his life for another, even a child, society attaches various levels of disdain and esteem for one's actions regardless of the legal requirements. Indeed, while abortion sadly remains legal in the US, most people hold abortionists in low regard -- and rightly so.
Mike Petrik | 08.01.07 - 4:17 pm | #

Mike is quite correct. The law generally does not require us to act to save another person, with certain exceptions existing due to special relationships. Even those, however, are quite narrow. Indeed, the civil law even imposes liability in instances where a person acts to save, but does it badly, as opposed to where a person choses not to act at all (hence the ironically named "Good Samaratin Rule").

At the same time, the law has traditionally imposed civil and criminal penalties upon those acting violently against an innocent person. And it has traditionally also imposed civil and criminal penalties against those who act violently against another person who are not free of fault when those acts are excessive.

This latter rule is particularly interesting in this context. A person would be free to act against a child who was hitting them, for example, by restraining the child. You aren't free to restrain children at will otherwise. But you wouldn't ever be free to kill the child merely because they were hitting you, or otherwise inconveniencing you. The fact that you personally were inconvenienced would be irrelevant.

That, of course, touches upon the moral questions surrounding abortion. The legal ones are less discussed, because the proponents of abortion, as well as a few of the opponents, are uncomfortable with the that. Nearly anyone with a legal background who is willing to be honest will concede that Roe v. Wade is a terrible legal decision as a matter of law. It's reasoning is weak, it's clearly anti-democratic and it is results oriented. The Justices at the time were working towards a result they knew most state electorates would not cause to occur democratically, and they attempted to dress it up scientifically. In doing so, they amazingly seemed to have believed that the state of human knowledge would cease advancing in 1973. The decision was weak at the time, but its' fairly absurd now. Even some honest liberal commentators will note that, as the decision has bootstrapped liberals who support it to a fully anti-democratic weak decision. That is why the decision in hardly ever defended as a legal decision, but rather as a policy decision. That's also evidence of how obsolete Roe v. Wade is.
Yeoman | 08.01.07 - 5:46 pm | #

It is worth noting that the wholesale exclusion of the unborn from the latter maxim was not an organic legal development, but a product of unwarranted judicial fiat.

Very true.

But once it's legally determined that a human, from the moment of conception onward, has an absolute right to life, this will ban any action that directly results in the death of an embryo, therefore rendering all other rights of its human host (i.e., its mother) moot, regardless of her medical circumstances. Women would therefore be required to face medical risks of varying degrees (and of coruse there will be disagreement assessing these risks), for the benefit of others, with no benefit to themselves. There's no way around this. Once a developing human's right to life is legally mandated in all circumstances, another class of people would lose their rights -- and, in some cases, their lives or health.
L. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 5:54 pm | #

"There's no way around this. Once a developing human's right to life is legally mandated in all circumstances, another class of people would lose their rights -- and, in some cases, their lives or health."

Perhaps so. But, in that instance, would you argue for a reinstatement of Saxon law? In Saxon law, no person was restrained to suffer anything. Homicide was legal, as long as a person's worth "Wergeld" was paid, and the deed acknowledged. A person only became an outlaw, if they refused to make the payment.

That may sound extreme, but any system of law will restrain the rights of others in favor of the greater good, or in recognition of a higher value. The opposite is anarchy. I can do what I want, when I want, but so can everyone else. It's up to everyone to determine, in that system, when to defend their rights. But of course, that places everyone at the mercy of everyone else's decision too.

Ultimately, however, I'll note you are making a policy, not a legal, argument. Hence the weakness of Roe v. Wade again. Roe doesn't allow for this argument, as your argument seeks to persuade what should and should not be allowed. Roe seeks to preclude any debate.
Yeoman | 08.01.07 - 6:10 pm | #

"Ultimately, however, I'll note you are making a policy, not a legal, argument. Hence the weakness of Roe v. Wade again. Roe doesn't allow for this argument, as your argument seeks to persuade what should and should not be allowed. Roe seeks to preclude any debate."

Unless, of course, I should note, the opposite was decided legally. That would be a preclusive argument also, but one that would be defendable, as erring on the side of caution, in my view.
Yeoman | 08.01.07 - 6:12 pm | #

So when the volunteer firemen show up at your house and your 10 year old daugher is still in the burning building, be sure to tell them they are not legally obligated to do anything. Then thank God they don't listen to such rubbish as they rush in to save her.
John J. Simmins | 08.01.07 - 6:50 pm | #

John J.S., if you truly don't see any differences between the two situations you are comparing with your analogy -- and when you begin to dismiss my views as "rubbish" -- then nothing I say is going to make any difference.

Yeoman, I agree Roe is flawed. In fact, I expect the odds are that I will see it either overturned outright or substantially altered within my lifetime.

But when it is my own life and health put at risk by a pregnancy, then I'm sure you can understand why arguments for "erring on the side of caution" cease to matter to me personally.
L. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 7:39 pm | #

Why, Blythe, why? How can you still think this way after looking at your adorable grandchildren?
These people need prayers!!!
marie | 08.01.07 - 9:21 pm | #

"But once that it's legally determined that a human, from the moment of conception onward, has an absolute right to life, this will ban any action that directly results in the death of an embryo, therefore rendering all other rights of its human host (i.e., its mother) moot, regardless of her medical circumstances. Women would therefore be required to face medical risks of varying degrees (and of coruse there will be disagreement assessing these risks), for the benefit of others, with no benefit to themselves. There's no way around this. Once a developing human's right to life is legally mandated in all circumstances, another class of people would lose their rights -- and, in some cases, their lives or health."

Yes, the logic is pretty compelling, but only if one accepts the very first premise, "that it's legally determined that a human, from the moment of conception onward, has an absolute right to life." The law, however, deals with few absolutes, and no such absolute was the law prior to Roe. The law has always permitted doctors to undertake medically necessary treatments even if at the risk of aborting a fetus. While you are correct that the phrase "medically necessary" invites different interpretations, setting the rules for the balancing of the competing interests of a "host" (what an interesting term) and the child is what voters acting through their reprentatives do, not courts. Indeed that is what was done in this country prior to 1973.
Mike Petrik | 08.01.07 - 9:30 pm | #

L.,
You can't have it both ways. John only dismissed your view as rubbish if you agree with his analogy. But you plainly claim you don't. And if you don't, then keeping in mind that the firemen in question are volunteers, I think it is fair to ask you to explain why his analogy is inappropriate.
Mike Petrik | 08.01.07 - 9:38 pm | #

My use of the word "host" was intentional, and referred to a parasitic relationship rather than to the Eucharist! :)

Why is John's analogy inappropriate? Well, for one thing, because my uterus is not a burning building?

Strictly speaking, as far as I know, volunteer firemen aren't legally bound to save anyone. I imagine I would do my best to save my daughter myself, but if it were truly impossible to save her -- for example, if she were trapped and surrounded by flames, and there were no safe way for any human being to reach her alive -- then I would not expect John or anyone to give his/her life in a futile effort to reach her.

Is this analogy relevant to abortion? Perhaps, since I believe I would not attempt to carry a baby to term if it meant certain death for me.

Where the analogy is useless: John is free to give his life to attempt to save my daughter even in a situation he knows is futile, rushing into a burning building he knows he would not exit alive. However, he is no more able to carry a pregnancy to term for a woman than she is able to safely remove her embryo and offer it to him to gestate.

In other words, his offer of a sacrifice is moot, because he is unable to take the physical risks of pregnancy and childbirth upon himself, even if he truly would do so if it were possible.
L. | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 11:16 pm | #

Yeoman:
In Saxon law, no person was restrained to suffer anything. Homicide was legal, as long as a person's worth "Wergeld" was paid, and the deed acknowledged. A person only became an outlaw, if they refused to make the payment.

Arggh... The past really is a foreign country, and "wergeld" is an example of how foreign. Because the concept *does* strike the ordinary person nowadays as paying for the right to murder. But that's not what it was. "Wergeld" was restitution to the victim's kin, yes, but it was never the case that it had to be accepted, nor that most people preferred getting money for their family members' deaths to seeing the perpetrator get his just desserts.

But where "wergeld" was accepted, it was often part of peacemaking between groups. When you remember that people killed were often killed in unofficial warfare/family feuds, it'd be much better for all if they could come to peace with each other.

A classic example of "wergeld" I'll tack to the bottom. Note the involvement of the Church. From Gregory of Tours "History of the Franks."

"A cruel feud now arose between citizens of Tours. While Sichar, the son of one John, deceased, was celebrating the feast of Christmas in the village of Manthelan, with Austregisel and other people of the district, the local priest sent a servant to invite several persons to drink wine with him at his house. When the servant came, one of the invited drew his sword and was brutal enough to strike, so that the man fell dead upon the spot.

Sichar was bound by ties of friendship to the priest; and as soon as he heard of the servant's murder he seized his weapons and went to the church to wait for Austregisel. He in his turn, hearing of this, took up his arms and equipment and went out against him. There was an encounter between the two parties; in the general confusion Sichar was brought safely away by some clerics, and escaped to his country estate, leaving behind in the priest's house money and raiment, with four wounded servants.

After his flight, Austregisel burst into the house, slew the servants, and carried off the gold and silver and other property. The two parties afterwards appeared before a tribunal of citizens, who found Austregisel guilty as a homicide who had murdered the servants, and without any right or sanction seized the property.

A few days after the case had been before the court, Sichar heard that the stolen effects were in the hands of Auno, his son, and his brother Eberulf. He set the tribunal at naught, and taking Audinus with him, lawlessly attacked these men by night with an armed party. The house where they were sleeping was forced open, the father, brother, and son were slain, the slaves murdered, and the movable property and herds carried off.

The matter coming to my ears, I was sore troubled, and acting in conjunction with the judge, sent messengers bidding them come before us to see if the matter could be reasonably settled so that the parties might separate in amity and the quarrel go no farther.

They came, and the citizens assembled, whereupon I said: 'Desist, 0 men, from further crime, lest the evil spread more widely. We have already lost sons of the Church, and now we fear that by this same feud we may be reft of others. Be ye peacemakers, I beseech you; let him who did the wrong make composition for the sake of brotherly love, that ye be children of peace, and worthy, by the Lord's grace, to possess the kingdom of heaven. For He Himself hath said:"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."

And behold, now, if he who is liable to the penalty have not the means of paying, the Church shall redeem the debt from her own moneys; meanwhile let no man's soul perish. Saying thus, I offered money belonging to the Church. But the party of Chramnesind, who demanded justice for the death of his father and his uncle, refused to accept it. When they were gone, Sichar made preparations for a journey, intending to proceed to the king, and with this in mind set out for Poitiers to see his wife first. But while he was there admonishing a slave to work, he struck him several times with a rod, whereupon the man drew the sword from his master's baldric and did not fear to wound him with it. He fell to the ground; but friends ran up and caught the slave, whom they first beat cruelly; then they cut off his hands and feet and condemned him to the gibbet.

Meanwhile the rumour reached Tours that Sichar was dead. As soon as Chramnesind heard it, he warned his relations and friends, and went with all speed to Sichar's house. He plundered it and slew some of the slaves, burned down all the houses, not only that of Sichar, but also those belonging to other landholders on the estate. He then took off with him the cattle, and all the movable effects. The parties were now summoned by the count to the city, and pleaded their own causes. The judges decided that he who had already refused a composition and then burned houses down should forfeit half of the sum formerly awarded to him, wherein they acted illegally, to ensure the restoration of peace; they further ordered that Sichar should pay the other moiety of the composition.

The Church then provided the sum named in the judgement; the parties gave security, and the composition was paid, both sides promising each other upon oath that they would never make further trouble against each other. So the feud came to an end."

(Ok, they became enemies again in the next paragraph, and went back to butchering each other, but peace was worth a shot, right?)
EileenR | 08.01.07 - 11:25 pm | #

I would rather die trying to save the life of a child then allow it to die, for any reason.

Good for you. But not of all us feel this way, or would act the same way in all circumstances -- nor do I think anyone should be legally compelled to do so.

Your response is one of the saddest things I've ever read. I'm very sorry for you.
c | 08.02.07 - 10:58 am | #

Oh, I'm sorry for you, too, c. Peace.

EileenR, comments like yours are one reason I keep coming back to Dawn's blog!
L. | Homepage | 08.02.07 - 12:26 pm | #

Is this analogy relevant to abortion? Perhaps, since I believe I would not attempt to carry a baby to term if it meant certain death for me.

Which would exclude the overwhelming portion of all abortions performed in this country.

The true analogy is that the person doesn't rescue the child because

1. it would be fatal
2. it might be fatal
3. it might cause serious injury
4. it might cause minor injury
5. it would make you late for your job, or your class
or
6. you want the kid dead anyway because you figure that if the kid dies you can persuade the kid's parent to go out with you
Mary | 08.02.07 - 7:11 pm | #

Glad I checked back on this thread to see your comment, L. Made me laugh. Bloodfeuds definitely make everything better!

Now, the substance of this thread I read and groaned over, because I just hate long circular debates where everyone seems to be talking past each other. The subject matter is worth examining, of course, but the combox style of debate makes my skin crawl.

Though one gets tempted into these exchanges onself from time to time, they're not very enlightening or pleasant.

Blood feuds, on the other hand...
EileenR | 08.02.07 - 9:36 pm | #

Mary, How very true. Maybe not always but certainly in many cases. It reminds me of something Lewis once wrote about the difference between good and evil.

A good person knows the difference between good and evil, and sometimes choses evil. An evil person can't tell the difference.
Demisme | 08.02.07 - 9:59 pm | #

L, according to The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives, both very Pro-abort centers, around 1% of all US abortions are in cases of rape or incest, and around 6% are in cases of medical necessity.
Should we all 93 children to be killed because of "lifestyle" decisions, ie. the child is not convenient or wanted, in order to to protect 6 mothers from the CHANCE that there may be life threatening complications and 1 mother who may not have had a choice?
I recognize this is very personal to you, L, and I respect that. You may not accept my arguments because I'll never bear children, I'm a man. But you must respect my arguments as we have respected yours because I am a human, and someday I intend to be a father.
The root issue here is, as has been noted before, responsibility. In your case it may not be, but for 93 other women in the sample it is. This does not negate your need, and others have mentioned that it is highly unlikely there will ever be a blanket law making all abortion illegal, especially in cases of medical necessity.
The purpose of sex is procreation, the pleasure is a byproduct, not a direct result. This is why I disagree morally with the homosexual act, but that is a whole different issue and can of worms that ought not be opened here. Once again, the purpose of the sex act is procreation. The more responsibility that is stripped away from the sex act, the more cases there will be of men taking advantage of women and the more cases there will be of single mothers facing the decision. This is demeaning to women, in it's root, as men do not have to buy the pills or deal with the pain, or face the decision.
Abortion not only destroys life, it destroys good. Do you know for sure if that beautiful child whose very existence threatens your health is not destined to become a great artist or scientist?
Further, we all die sooner or later. There is no promise that we are to live until we are 80 or 90. We have no right to assume we are to live to any age. There is no promise the sun will rise for any of us tomorrow.
Today some fatal accident may occur and some life may be snuffed out as quickly as that.
We cannot assume life but we must protect it, and take reasonable measures to prevent it from being taken. It is a sacred charge that I take very seriously that if I am to have children, as I hope to one day, my health, safety, and very life is considered secondary if their's is in jeopardy. As a grown person who knows that each day lived is another day less that I have left, and comparing that to a child who may very well still have many years of immeasurable potential, their own life is of greater importance than mine. This is not an animalistic or tribal approach. There are only very limited chances, and it is reasonably unforeseeable that I will be called upon to in such a way give up my life for my children, but I am willing if I am faced with such a decision, to do this.
Harkening back to the Titanic disaster, when in that benighted era when abortion was most definitely illegal, and yet the children and those who bore them are considered so very much more important than the men in society. The call went out as the ship sank "Women and children first". The captain, in an act of supreme cowardice and selfish avarice, pushed his own way onto a lifeboat and was publicly shamed the rest of his natural life for that act.
Children ought not run our lives out of their selfish ambition, but we are be called to subserve our wishes and desires and comfort when we have voluntarily taken upon ourselves the mantle of parenthood. And it is possible we may be called upon to subserve even our safety to them as well.
A very good family friend has been in the same situation as you, she had medically necessary c-sections for most if not all of her children. And her doctors told her much the same thing you've intimated you were told. Yet she chose to continue having her children when they came, and her children are intelligent and special every one.
Who would she be to play God and decide that this one or that one did not need to survive only to allow her to have one more day, which might not have even been hers to have?
Matt | Homepage | 08.06.07 - 5:19 pm | #