Home - List All Discussions

Opposing view: Compromise equals betrayal

Thoughts?

by: 4given

Opposing view: Compromise equals betrayal
By Joseph M. Scheidler
Some "pro-life" organizations are proposing to begin working with groups that support abortion. Their concept is to accept as fact that we cannot outlaw abortion any time soon, and so we should work on reducing the number of abortions.
The concept sounds OK on the surface, but according to Jacqueline Salmon in The Washington Post, the coalition plans to avoid areas of possible conflict such as restrictions on abortion and abstinence-only programs. These are the very things that do reduce abortion.
There is no evidence that increasing social programs - such as low-cost health care and day care, college grants and maternity homes - will impact a woman's abortion decision. It is rare in our experience to find a woman who says the reason she is choosing abortion is that she doesn't have day care, or that she'd rather go to college.
Those of us who have spent years outside abortion clinics, talking with abortion-bound women, are keenly aware of what leads women there. Often, the woman feels she has no choice because someone important in her life refuses to support a decision to keep the baby.
More than 3,000 pregnancy centers in the U.S. are ready to help a woman with material needs, emotional support, counseling and medical care. Anyone who wants to stop abortion should promote these centers.
I challenge anyone who wants to help pregnant women to actually go to an abortion clinic. You'll see the young girl who doesn't want an abortion, but whose family doesn't want to be "burdened" with a baby. She's not making her own choice. She is making someone else's choice. Or the young mother whose husband doesn't want their child. Whose choice is she making?
We see the effort to combine pro-life and pro-choice forces as a betrayal on the part of the pro-lifers. Besides, it has been tried, several times. And it always fails. You can't compromise with evil. And abortion is an intrinsic evil.
Women are not looking for government-operated social programs. They're looking for someone to care, someone to love them. Government programs cannot do that.
Joseph M. Scheidler is national director of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League.http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped.../opposing-view-c.html

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Abstinence-only education does NOT REDUCE ABORTIONS. This has been proven time and time again around the world.

reply from: 4given

"More than 3,000 pregnancy centers in the U.S. are ready to help a woman with material needs, emotional support, counseling and medical care. Anyone who wants to stop abortion should promote these centers. "
Right?!

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I agree, 4given. So called "compromise" and "common ground" programs are nothing more than a feel good exercise, IMO. They start with the premise that neither side has a superior moral position, and then try to bargain away baby's lives in exchange for getting to socialize with the side that wants to see them killed. Some bargain.

reply from: scopia19822

Most women who seek abortions do so because of economic factors. The scope of what that means is so broad that we can not just narrow it down. We should be working toward more stringant discrimination laws that would forbid an employer for refusing to hire a pregnant woman or a woman of childbearing age or to fire a woman because she is pregnant and refuses to have an abortion, If you give a woman who is seeking an abortion other alternatives such as low cost daycare or healthcare chances are they will choose life over death. There is only so much the CPCs can do as most rely strictly on donations to operate and they do provide many referrals to government agencies and it is because of programs such as this that many women choose life over death.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I never heard a pro-choicer say "we should shut down crisis pregnancy centers"!

reply from: scopia19822

"I never heard a pro-choicer say "we should shut down crisis pregnancy centers"!
PP says on thier site under the women thinking of abortion section to avoid CPCs.

reply from: Banned Member

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/standard-21507.htm
"YOU JUST NEED TO GET IT TAKEN CARE OF." - spoken by a former Planned Parenthood worker who got fired for speaking like a Planned Parenthood worker!

reply from: carolemarie

I have seen a woman who had an abortion because of the daycare issue. She told me that she didn't hate the baby, but she couldn't get to work on time if she had to drop off a baby. I met her as she was leaving the clinic, after the abortion.
I wish I had gotten there earlier, so I could have helped her...
that memory haunts me, I wonder what happen to her and how she is doing now...

reply from: Banned Member

The woman is getting to work on time. Isn't Planned Parenthood wonderful?
Punctuality! Just another service that Planned Parenthood provides!

reply from: yoda

Exactly. They're just a bunch of sugar-sweet, baby loving, bleeding heart do gooders who wouldn't hurt a fly...... unless it was in the way of killing a baby.

reply from: carolemarie

Exactly. They're just a bunch of sugar-sweet, baby loving, bleeding heart do gooders who wouldn't hurt a fly...... unless it was in the way of killing a baby.
I don't know if she told the clinic her problems or not. I am assuming she made an appointment and payed them. There is no mandatory counseling and she was about 26, so she wasn't a kid, if you call up for an appointment they set you one and answer any questions you have. Then you just go and have it done. Some clinics will ask you questions, but most assume that you know what you want.
The reason I posted the story was to point out the need for social programs. Daycare is a major hassle for single moms. It is a big outlay of cash for women who already don't make much money, more than most can afford. If you want to help women choose life, you have to make it possible for them to be able to take care of the children.

reply from: yoda

No, you don't "have to". It would help, but like a lot of other things that poor people need, it's not likely to be coming soon.
But we don't make it possible for poor people to take care of their born kids just so they won't kill them. We make it clear that killing them is a bad thing, whether they can afford their kids or not. And that's what we ought to do with abortion, by making it illegal.

reply from: Banned Member

I don't like any idea that presumes that it's someone elses fault that abortion happens other than that of those who seek and provide them. Abortion happens because women choose abortion and abortion providers provide them.

reply from: yoda

Exactly. When we begin to excuse those who have the ultimate authority over, and responsibility for abortion, we are just making abortion more attractive. The person seeking, and the person doing the abortion have the primary responsibility for them. Those who facilitate, and those who pressure have "only" secondary responsibility.

reply from: 4given

Unless in a unique situation (forced abortion), the fault and guilt remains with the mother and slaughtering hand she has hired.

reply from: Rosalie

Don't beat yourself up over it. No one can help EVERYONE. I'm sure you've helped other women who felt pressured to abort by the circumstances and you've offered them a helping hand so they didn't have to have an abortion they didn't want to have in the first place. And that's what counts.
Exactly. Those who don't help/don't want to help are nothing but control freaks. Removing the symptoms DOES NOT HELP. It's the cause we need to take care of, which in other words means lessening the number of unwanted pregnancies and helping women, who want to be mothers but have to opt for an abortion because they wouldn't have a job or proper education and wouldn't have the means to take care of their babies properly.
The fact that so many "pro-lifers" are ignoring this speaks volumes about what kind of people they are.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Instead of the war on drugs, we should have a war on abortion.

reply from: yoda

We do. We just don't have the government's cooperation....... yet.

reply from: scopia19822

"Exactly. Those who don't help/don't want to help are nothing but control freaks. Removing the symptoms DOES NOT HELP. It's the cause we need to take care of, which in other words means lessening the number of unwanted pregnancies and helping women, who want to be mothers but have to opt for an abortion because they wouldn't have a job or proper education and wouldn't have the means to take care of their babies properly.
The fact that so many "pro-lifers" are ignoring this speaks volumes about what kind of people they are."
Hell must be 20 below to day because I am agreeing with Rosalie on this one. Most women who "choose" abortion do so for economic reasons and what defines that is broad. When a woman is afraid that she will be fired if she has a child is going to feel backed into a corner and choose abortion especially if she has other children to feed. If she doesnt have that income she cant feed herself, much less her born children and the unborn child she is carrying. We need to lobby for more strinigent discrimination laws so that an employer will not be able to say your job or the child. If you want to save the babies you have to care about the women that will carry them, birth them and raise them. I am putting my neck out here and have been deemed a traitor already, but the logic of saying "no abortions" and then saying to women who are contemplating abortion "we are not going to help you with any assisitance as I dont want my precious tax dollars paying for your child " doesnt compute with me. I have heard the argument from those who sit on the fence that they think that with the prolife movement the right to life ends at birth and for most of us in the prolife community that is not the case at all we care about what happens to the babies before and after birth.

reply from: Rosalie

We do. We just don't have the government's cooperation....... yet.
War against women, war to control their reproductive lives, war to subject them under the control of men and government.... you are stupid if you think we are going to allow that.
It's sad that you think that in the 21st century you or anyone else should have any say in women's private, medical decisions.

reply from: Rosalie

I'm really glad at least some pro-lifers think like that.

reply from: yoda

You can't make it broad enough to make that true. At most it's around 50%. Read the surveys again.
We've been doing that for 35 years, and where has it gotten us? We need to keep working for BOTH things, more help for crisis pregnancies, and making abortion illegal at the SAME TIME.

reply from: BossMomma

Right, let the dopers sling their dope, they aren't selling drugs to children or exploiting children to sell drugs after all, right? Instead lets go picket an abortion clinic and rant and scream at women we have no intention of helping all to help a fetus we wont care about once born..good plan

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I also agree with both of you on this!

reply from: BossMomma

I also agree with both of you on this!
It's the difference between being pro-pregnancy and pro-life, the majority are the former with a select few supporting the latter. To be pro-life one must be willing to go the distance, life does not end once the cord is cut. Pro-fetals need to either step up and help and truly become pro-life or, back off, shut their pie holes and leave the real work to the real pro-lifers.

reply from: yoda

Fortunately most prolifers are, despite your eagerness to smear them.
And fortunately, you have no authority to define anything.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Fortunately most prolifers are, despite your eagerness to smear them.
And fortunately, you have no authority to define anything.
Neither do you.

reply from: yoda

So isn't it ever so nice that I don't try?

reply from: BossMomma

Fortunately most prolifers are, despite your eagerness to smear them.
And fortunately, you have no authority to define anything.
Nor do you, though you frequently take it upon yourself to do so. The pro-lifers who actually do useful work to help women and children have my full support as I am one of them. Those who loiter outside of abortion clinics with a sign and a mouthful of ignorant hatred (you) are the one's recieving the well deserved smearing.

reply from: BossMomma

So isn't it ever so nice that I don't try?
Oh this is rich coming from Mr. Webster's Dic.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I didn't even have to say it myself

reply from: BossMomma

You know me lol very little I wont say to prove a point.

reply from: yoda

You seriously do not know the difference between making a definition up and quoting one from a dictionary?
Seriously?
SERIOUSLY?????????

reply from: yoda

You seriously do not know the difference between making a definition up and quoting one from a dictionary?
Seriously?
SERIOUSLY?????????

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Am I pro-life, Yoda? If you say no, even if you state opinions as to why, then you are still making up a definition. Any time you call someone a faux-lifer, you are personally redefining what it is to be pro-life.

reply from: yoda

Horse hockey, if you'll pardon the expression. BS if you won't.
If I were to re-define an established word or term, like you and BM do, that is "making up a definition". Using slang terms does not count as such.
You're really reaching now. Honestly, there is a difference between an established, reputable dictionary and YOUR opinion, even if you won't admit that there is.

reply from: BossMomma

You seriously do not know the difference between making a definition up and quoting one from a dictionary?
Seriously?
SERIOUSLY?????????
Yes yoda we know your confused, that's part of your problem.
Main Entry: pro-life (+)prO-!lIf
Pronunciation: \ (?)pr?-?l?f \
Function: adjective
Date: 1971
Results
1971 opposed to abortion
Related Forms
1. pro - lif·er(+)prO-!lI-fur \ -?l?-f?r \ noun
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary copyright © 2008 by Merriam-Webster, incorporated
However me, Lib, Scopia, Carole Marie and, RML who are all opposed to abortion have been frequently attacked because we advocate compassion and aid for women to help them choose life. You have been one of the most prevalent attackers of this opinion. So clearly you are attempting to define who is what.

reply from: SRUW4I5

You seriously do not know the difference between making a definition up and quoting one from a dictionary?
Seriously?
SERIOUSLY?????????
Yes yoda we know your confused, that's part of your problem.
Main Entry: pro-life (+)prO-!lIf
Pronunciation: \ (?)pr?-?l?f \
Function: adjective
Date: 1971
Results
1971 opposed to abortion
Related Forms
1. pro - lif·er(+)prO-!lI-fur \ -?l?-f?r \ noun
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary copyright © 2008 by Merriam-Webster, incorporated
However me, Lib, Scopia, Carole Marie and, RML who are all opposed to abortion have been frequently attacked because we advocate compassion and aid for women to help them choose life. You have been one of the most prevalent attackers of this opinion. So clearly you are attempting to define who is what.
Here is a better definition of Pro-Life (but doesn't work for every Pro-Lifer)
It's from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pro-life (definition number 4)

reply from: BossMomma

It's from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pro-life (definition number 4)
I fully agree with that definition and do work to change the conditions that might drive women to abort, yet I've met almost constant disagreement by mainstream pro-fetal-lifers who care for nothing more than every pregnancy resulting in a live birth, no concern for the woman, no concern for the born child.

reply from: carolemarie

That is a good definition.

reply from: yoda

Wait, let me take this in a minute....... YOU are actually quoting a dictionary as if you respected it as an AUTHORATIVE SOURCE? REALLY??
Well, congratuations, I knew you would come around eventually. And congratulations also on finding something that I hadn't seen before. I suspect it is new (but of course it's still valid). The others that I checked (yes, I do look at more than one) all were along this line:
pro·-life (pr??l?f?) adjective
opposing the legal right to obtain an abortion (Dictionary.com)
But since M-W has seen fit to define it that way, it is now an "official" definition.
No, I had not seen that definition before, but at any rate all three of you had expressed your support for the re-criminalization of abortion, so that would qualify you under the more popular definition anyway.
So, you can turn off the "victimology sermon" now. And you can drop the "you are attempting to define" horsecrap, as well.
That's really lame, even for you.

reply from: yoda

That's another "user edited" website. It means nothing, all it represents is the opinion of the most persistent user.

reply from: yoda

Say, are you attempting to DEFINE a new term there?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Horse hockey, if you'll pardon the expression. BS if you won't.
If I were to re-define an established word or term, like you and BM do, that is "making up a definition". Using slang terms does not count as such.
You're really reaching now. Honestly, there is a difference between an established, reputable dictionary and YOUR opinion, even if you won't admit that there is.
Am I pro-life, Yoda?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The point is that you, Yoda, have attempted time and again to say that I am not a pro-lifer simply because I don't think an immediate, complete ban on elective abortion would be smart. According to unbiased, non-"user edited dictionaries", I am pro-life because I am "opposed to abortion". Secondly, after much research and thought, I now realise that overturning Roe would not in fact make abortion immediately illegal, but would in fact return the power to the states. I think this is a good step to take, but in the meantime I also feel that we should work to "change the social and economic conditions that lead people to choose abortion."
If I had a choice to vote on overturning Roe, I would vote yes. If I had a choice to immediately make all elective abortions illegal right now, I don't know what I'd do. I think it's incredibly rash and harmful to do something like that, so unless the bill had behind it a lot of extra aid for these women as well as a comprehensive plan to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, I don't think I'd vote yes. I also think that there are too many problems with our society right now, aka "social and economic conditions", that need to be fixed first. As I believe Scopia said, she wants to work to help women not need to choose abortion.

reply from: BossMomma

You haven't seen that definition before? It's in the dictionary you so love..oh wait, it's in this year's dictionary. The previous definition was the support of legal protection for embryos and fetuses, so much for using the dictionary to define terms. Dictionary definitions change, what will the 2009 definition read? The only horse crap I see is that which you excrete in every post.

reply from: joe

They are unborn children. They are the ones being killed every day by the thousands and for you to judge those that defend the innocent is disgusting. And you better damn well believe we care about the born we just see the true victim...the "least of these".

reply from: joe

Correction: War against killers. You sure talk tough when the only life you have the guts to kill is the defenseless.

reply from: BossMomma

They are unborn children. They are the ones being killed every day by the thousands and for you to judge those that defend the innocent is disgusting. And you better damn well believe we care about the born we just see the true victim...the "least of these".
I know damn well they are unborn children, I'm pro-life. And as for the true victim, is a child going hungry with no medical care any less a victim? Is a woman impregnated and left by the 'father' to her own devices any less a victim? Spare me your thunder, you aren't impressing anyone.
For pro-lifers to stop abortion they must first stop the idea that abortion is nessesary by helping the woman instead of treating her like nothing but a uterus on legs. And once they've saved the child they should keep interest in that child's wellbeing. If you aren't willing to put your time and money where your mouth is, shut up about abortion.

reply from: joe

LOL. Shut up about abortion! You have as much of a chance of convincing me to deny my Christ!
Is it legal in America to starve your child. No
Is it legal in America to rape. No.
Is it legal in America to kill a unborn child. Yes.
Who is a victim and by law allowed to be a victim, spare me your sob story. I am seeking justice for the innocent.

reply from: BossMomma

LOL. Shut up about abortion! You have as much of a chance of convincing me to deny my Christ!
Is it legal in America to starve your child. No
Is it legal in America to rape. No.
Is it legal in America to kill a unborn child. Yes.
Who is a victim and by law allowed to be a victim, spare me your sob story. I am seeking justice for the innocent.
Sob story? Typical mans response, I'm not interested in convincing an idiot. You and your ilk will get no where by standing only for the unborn. As another poster here told me once the first person to cry out against abortion and the last person to offer help is typically a 'pro-life' man. Your Christ spoke of love and charity and tolerance, he is my Christ too.

reply from: joe

My love for the unborn is a natural emotion because of my love for the born child and the human race, both men and women. It amazes me how some like yourself make this into a sexist issue. I see murder, I see injustice, I do not see the gender of the murderer...because they are both. (male/female "doctor", female "mother", male "father").
You don't have to convince me of anything...I see the truth for what it is. It is the truth that will end this injustice.

reply from: BossMomma

My love for the unborn is a natural emotion because of my love for the born child and the human race, both men and women. It amazes me how some like yourself make this into a sexist issue. I see murder, I see injustice, I do not see the gender of the murderer...because they are both. (male/female "doctor", female "mother", male "father").
You don't have to convince me of anything...I see the truth for what it is. It is the truth that will end this injustice.
You see your version of the truth anyway.

reply from: carolemarie

My love for the unborn is a natural emotion because of my love for the born child and the human race, both men and women. It amazes me how some like yourself make this into a sexist issue. I see murder, I see injustice, I do not see the gender of the murderer...because they are both. (male/female "doctor", female "mother", male "father").
You don't have to convince me of anything...I see the truth for what it is. It is the truth that will end this injustice.
If you want to top abortion you have to help women, not hate them. In other words grow up.

reply from: 4given

Amen.
If confused, ask a child.

reply from: Witness

Originally posted by: 4given
We see the effort to combine pro-life and pro-choice forces as a betrayal on the part of the pro-lifers. Besides, it has been tried, several times. And it always fails. You can't compromise with evil. And abortion is an intrinsic evil.
I agree completely. Furthermore, I think these groups should be outed to the public so that those that recognize this for the atrocity it is will not unknowingly support them. If they want to embrace these cold-blooded killer, let them do it on their own.

reply from: Witness

And the hoardes that go through the gates in Beamers, Caddies, etc. will benefit from this how?
I see more poor women choose life despite their circumstances than rich repenting of their selfishness.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

No, you don't "have to". It would help, but like a lot of other things that poor people need, it's not likely to be coming soon.
But we don't make it possible for poor people to take care of their born kids just so they won't kill them. We make it clear that killing them is a bad thing, whether they can afford their kids or not. And that's what we ought to do with abortion, by making it illegal.
We DO make it possible for poor people to have free or low-cost day care so that they don't have to give their born children away to a foster family or up for adoption. Killing the unborn IS a bad thing, but if someone cannot afford another child, we should be doing everything in our power to help them out financially.
I do not understand why some posters here want to condemn women for aborting children they know they cannot afford and throw them in jail if they abort. Why NOT come together to provide the services and supplies that these parents need to care for their babies instead of condemning them to either sink even deeper into poverty or making them prefer abortion by telling them that they MUST give birth whether they can afford the child or not?
Where is the sympathy, understanding and caring for the parents? Why forget about them and focus solely on their unborn children? Why NOT help them??

reply from: faithman

No, you don't "have to". It would help, but like a lot of other things that poor people need, it's not likely to be coming soon.
But we don't make it possible for poor people to take care of their born kids just so they won't kill them. We make it clear that killing them is a bad thing, whether they can afford their kids or not. And that's what we ought to do with abortion, by making it illegal.
We DO make it possible for poor people to have free or low-cost day care so that they don't have to give their born children away to a foster family or up for adoption. Killing the unborn IS a bad thing, but if someone cannot afford another child, we should be doing everything in our power to help them out financially.
I do not understand why some posters here want to condemn women for aborting children they know they cannot afford and throw them in jail if they abort. Why NOT come together to provide the services and supplies that these parents need to care for their babies instead of condemning them to either sink even deeper into poverty or making them prefer abortion by telling them that they MUST give birth whether they can afford the child or not?
Where is the sympathy, understanding and caring for the parents? Why forget about them and focus solely on their unborn children? Why NOT help them??
There are ministries, and organizations galore out there for women to take advantage of to help care for children. I am sick and tired of falsly being accused of not caring about the plight of poor moms. Simply isn't true.
But I will never give in to false "mercy" that says a killer walks free. You "mercy" folks are the ones out of ballance, and you devalue the life of a womb child with your pretencious crap. You have no mercy, or kindness left for the womb child, because you lavish it upon their killers. If a "poor mom" kills her born children, she meets justice handed down by a jury of fellow citizens. The same penalty should be handed down to those who kill their womb children. It is not me who is out of ballance here. I value the pre-born the same as the born. It is the false mercy crowd who constantly says that killer mommy dearest is of more value than the children she kills. That is no where near being pro-life. That is pro-killer scanc.

reply from: faithman

And the hoardes that go through the gates in Beamers, Caddies, etc. will benefit from this how?
I see more poor women choose life despite their circumstances than rich repenting of their selfishness.
Thank you!!!!!! Well said.

reply from: yoda

Your stated position is that which is defined as "prolife" in the single definition posted by BM, so by that you do qualify, yes.
It's not a question of what's "smart", it's a question of what is right.
That would depend entirely upon HOW Roe was overturned.
Slave owners said there were too many economic problems to do a way with slavery "immediately". And there is NO "need" for abortion.

reply from: yoda

It is sad, isn't it? Some here just have "other agendas" that they pursue on this particular forum, even though it happens to be dedicated to the issue of abortion. Oh, and they love to attack and curse anyone who disagrees with them.... kinda reminds me of CP, in a way.

reply from: yoda

Joe does not hate women. Why are you attacking him?

reply from: yoda

And at the SAME TIME we make it clear to them that KILLING their born kids is AGAINST THE LAW and that we will SEND THEM TO PRISON if they do that.
Did you miss that little detail?

reply from: yoda

And the hoardes that go through the gates in Beamers, Caddies, etc. will benefit from this how?
I see more poor women choose life despite their circumstances than rich repenting of their selfishness.
Thank you!!!!!! Well said.
And absolutely true, as well.
My first wife was poor, physically handicapped, and uneducated. Yet when confronted with an unexpected pregnancy, she never for a moment considered abortion. Many years later, my fiance, who was middle class, well educated, and very capable, faced the same situation and would not consider anything BUT an abortion, in spite of offers to raise the child without her help.
It's not the money. It's what is in the heart.

reply from: faithman

Your stated position is that which is defined as "prolife" in the single definition posted by BM, so by that you do qualify, yes.
It's not a question of what's "smart", it's a question of what is right.
That would depend entirely upon HOW Roe was overturned.
Slave owners said there were too many economic problems to do a way with slavery "immediately". And there is NO "need" for abortion.
Unless you are a pro-killer scanc. Then your need to feel powerful, out wieghs the right of a child to live. Economy comes second to the right to live. Doesn't it take breath to enjoy a good economy? What good is all the money in the world to a corpse? Economic times fluxuates, but abortion is forever. Besides the fact that America leads the world economicly. The main reason is because we see money as a tool to enhance the right to live, not our final objective. The more we depart from this truth, the worse our economy will get. But leave it to a false pro-lifer to get it backwards.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Your stated position is that which is defined as "prolife" in the single definition posted by BM, so by that you do qualify, yes.
It's not a question of what's "smart", it's a question of what is right.
That would depend entirely upon HOW Roe was overturned.
Slave owners said there were too many economic problems to do a way with slavery "immediately". And there is NO "need" for abortion.
Right now, women have a perceived need for abortion. They don't have enough money, they'll get kicked out or beaten up, they won't be able to be educated, etc. All of these issues are solvable right now. But these women are told they cannot make it; it's safer to abort etc.
What needs to be done is to change their perceptions. That's what I feel. And I know from experience that you don't change many opinions by being mean all the time and name calling.

reply from: yoda

That's fine. The more that can be done, the better. In the meantime, it ought to be illegal NOW to electively kill an unborn child.
Then why have you done so much of that here?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

And at the SAME TIME we make it clear to them that KILLING their born kids is AGAINST THE LAW and that we will SEND THEM TO PRISON if they do that.
Did you miss that little detail?
Nope.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's fine. The more that can be done, the better. In the meantime, it ought to be illegal NOW to electively kill and unborn child.
Then why have you done so much of that here?
Only to you, really. And I haven't done it to change your perceptions on anything; I've just done it in reaction to your name calling. I haven't done it for any of the reasons you state you do, "hard love will change their minds", "they need to face the 'truth', this is what they are" etc.
I don't insult the women in this debate for being afraid. I did insult you as a form of self defense. I'm not going to do it any more.

reply from: yoda

That lie would've been a lot more effective if you'd told it in response to a post in which I actually DID call someone a name....
But that'd be waaaay too inconvenient for you, wouldn't it?

reply from: yoda

Ah, so you just don't care about the unborn then.....

reply from: carolemarie

You don't know why she is there. Period. The beamer may or may not be hers. It may be the fathers who says abort or get out.
She may lose the job that pays for it if she doesn't abort. She pay have lost the job and that is why she is there.
She may think she can't handle another child...we have to help her find a reason to choose life.
just saying abortion is wrong isn't enough.

reply from: yoda

Maybe, maybe not, but it's a damn good start.
In fact, unless you do start out with it, you're wasting your time.

reply from: carolemarie

Joe does not hate women. Why are you attacking him?
I think Joe does have issues with women or he wouldn't oppose helping them avoid abortion.
He just wants to call them names and talk about sending them to jail. Which isn't going to happen any time soon, since abortion is legal.
It is more helpful to deal with what is currently possible then wild speculation.
Right now, abortion is legal. Right now, you have to persuade a woman to choose life. That means that you have to help her with options.

reply from: yoda

I'll let Joe answer for himself, but I am asking why you aren't being positive and supportive towards Joe.
Don't you think you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?

reply from: carolemarie

I'll let Joe answer for himself, but I am asking why you aren't being positive and supportive towards Joe.
Don't you think you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?
I use to cut Joe slack, but he remains dedicated to being a fan of killing Dr's judging everyone and doing nothing.

reply from: yoda

That's not my point. You're always telling us to be nicer to the proaborts so we can "influence them", and yet you are harsh to Joe.
Don't you think you can influence him more by being nice?

reply from: carolemarie

That's not my point. You're always telling us to be nicer to the proaborts so we can "influence them", and yet you are harsh to Joe.
Don't you think you can influence him more by being nice?
I think he is a Faithman sock puppet. When Fboy disappeared, Joe did to. Now suprise he is back

reply from: faithman

That's not my point. You're always telling us to be nicer to the proaborts so we can "influence them", and yet you are harsh to Joe.
Don't you think you can influence him more by being nice?
I think he is a Faithman sock puppet. When Fboy disappeared, Joe did to. Now suprise he is back
If that were true, which it isn't, then you have the chance to be nice twice. But you don't believe your own crap. You lift up a "nice" standard for everone one else, but refuse to live up to it for yourself. But that just the way a killer of three is. Did you kill them nice? But of course you did, you do everything nice, right?

reply from: Banned Member

Abortion is evil. No compromises!

reply from: carolemarie

That's not my point. You're always telling us to be nicer to the proaborts so we can "influence them", and yet you are harsh to Joe.
Don't you think you can influence him more by being nice?
I think he is a Faithman sock puppet. When Fboy disappeared, Joe did to. Now suprise he is back
If that were true, which it isn't, then you have the chance to be nice twice. But you don't believe your own crap. You lift up a "nice" standard for everone one else, but refuse to live up to it for yourself. But that just the way a killer of three is. Did you kill them nice? But of course you did, you do everything nice, right?
I give you every opportunity to debate like a normal person. You use every chance to be vicious, not to debate.

reply from: Banned Member

The pro-life movement compromised in 1973. They have been compromising ever since to this day. Barack Obama may erase every compromise that has been made in favor of an abortion state of America. Obama represents abortion absolutism. Obama is not pro-abortion. Obama is abortion-only.

reply from: carolemarie

Abortion became legal in 1973, except for Colorado, California and NYC
There was no prolife movement in 1973. Most Christians were not even sure if abortion was wrong. Nobody really opposed it.
That is why so many people believed that it wasn't a baby yet. Because we didn't have the information we have now.

reply from: carolemarie

No, you don't "have to". It would help, but like a lot of other things that poor people need, it's not likely to be coming soon.
But we don't make it possible for poor people to take care of their born kids just so they won't kill them. We make it clear that killing them is a bad thing, whether they can afford their kids or not. And that's what we ought to do with abortion, by making it illegal.
We DO make it possible for poor people to have free or low-cost day care so that they don't have to give their born children away to a foster family or up for adoption. Killing the unborn IS a bad thing, but if someone cannot afford another child, we should be doing everything in our power to help them out financially.
I do not understand why some posters here want to condemn women for aborting children they know they cannot afford and throw them in jail if they abort. Why NOT come together to provide the services and supplies that these parents need to care for their babies instead of condemning them to either sink even deeper into poverty or making them prefer abortion by telling them that they MUST give birth whether they can afford the child or not?
Where is the sympathy, understanding and caring for the parents? Why forget about them and focus solely on their unborn children? Why NOT help them??
There are ministries, and organizations galore out there for women to take advantage of to help care for children. I am sick and tired of falsly being accused of not caring about the plight of poor moms. Simply isn't true.
But I will never give in to false "mercy" that says a killer walks free. You "mercy" folks are the ones out of ballance, and you devalue the life of a womb child with your pretencious crap. You have no mercy, or kindness left for the womb child, because you lavish it upon their killers. If a "poor mom" kills her born children, she meets justice handed down by a jury of fellow citizens. The same penalty should be handed down to those who kill their womb children. It is not me who is out of ballance here. I value the pre-born the same as the born. It is the false mercy crowd who constantly says that killer mommy dearest is of more value than the children she kills. That is no where near being pro-life. That is pro-killer scanc.
No, we say we realize that to save that baby, you have to help the mother. Both the mother and the child count equally. The fetus isn't more important.

reply from: faithman

That's not my point. You're always telling us to be nicer to the proaborts so we can "influence them", and yet you are harsh to Joe.
Don't you think you can influence him more by being nice?
I think he is a Faithman sock puppet. When Fboy disappeared, Joe did to. Now suprise he is back
If that were true, which it isn't, then you have the chance to be nice twice. But you don't believe your own crap. You lift up a "nice" standard for everone one else, but refuse to live up to it for yourself. But that just the way a killer of three is. Did you kill them nice? But of course you did, you do everything nice, right?
I give you every opportunity to debate like a normal person. You use every chance to be vicious, not to debate.
I don't need, nor did I ask for your "opportunities". What an arrogant piece of work you are. I am not here to"debate" anybody. I am here to net work with real pro-lifers, and provide them with some of the best PL material to be had anywhere, and mostly free of charge to those on the front line, and to kick crap out of pro aborts and false pro-lifers. But when they are as full of it as you are, they just dont seem to run out of crap. All you have done is promote yourself, and your justifications for killing womb children with almaost every post. You are not nice at all. You have the gaul to call someone viscious, when you cold bloodedly, and visciously killed your own children. It don't take much prodding to rip your mask off, and expose you for the phony that you are. You are not nice, and you are not pro-life.

reply from: carolemarie

I am sweet AND nice.
Too bad you can't see the obvious.
I am not profetus. I am prolife. Even yours.

reply from: faithman

You are SSSSOOOOOO stupid and ignorant. The PL organization I belong to was started in 1972. One in Colorado was started in 1967. We have had Fetal development imagery WWWWWWAAAAAYYYYYY before roe. Only the willingly ignorant, who are trying to justify killing 3 would say such stupid things.

reply from: carolemarie

You are SSSSOOOOOO stupid and ignorant. The PL organization I belong to was started in 1972. One in Colorado was started in 1967. We have had Fetal development imagery WWWWWWAAAAAYYYYYY before roe. Only the willingly ignorant, who are trying to justify killing 3 would say such stupid things.
Then, oh wise one, why wasn't it used by Wade? People believed it was tissue because that was the conventional wisdom back then.
Don't try to revise history.

reply from: Banned Member

That's not entirely true. There were people that opposed abortion in 1973, the very people that fought and lost the battle to keep it illegal. Was there a pro-life movement exactly? Not in the broader and more organized sense that we think of today, but people did oppose abortion.
As far as who was opposed to abortion, it was very often the scientific/medical community that opposed abortion with facts, not religion. That the Catholic church and other Christians also opposed abortion was always known.
There was information then, not as much as we have now but what he had then that we still have now is people who simply don''t care about the facts. They don't care that they are killing unborn children. The decision to abort is very matter of fact, business-like, cold efficient, mechanical and driven by money and greed.
However...
I believe that Obama may sabotage the abortion industry more than he could ever do to promote and normalize abortion. By taking a radical stand on abortion, and by removing what nearly all people understand to be rational and understandable restrictions on abortion, he will create a backlash against abortion. He will draw a massive amount of attention to the issue, even among those who have never given abortion much thought. We must be prepared to ride the wave of a wild storm and be ready to raise our voices and make our cause heard to the nation and the world.

reply from: faithman

No, you don't "have to". It would help, but like a lot of other things that poor people need, it's not likely to be coming soon.
But we don't make it possible for poor people to take care of their born kids just so they won't kill them. We make it clear that killing them is a bad thing, whether they can afford their kids or not. And that's what we ought to do with abortion, by making it illegal.
We DO make it possible for poor people to have free or low-cost day care so that they don't have to give their born children away to a foster family or up for adoption. Killing the unborn IS a bad thing, but if someone cannot afford another child, we should be doing everything in our power to help them out financially.
I do not understand why some posters here want to condemn women for aborting children they know they cannot afford and throw them in jail if they abort. Why NOT come together to provide the services and supplies that these parents need to care for their babies instead of condemning them to either sink even deeper into poverty or making them prefer abortion by telling them that they MUST give birth whether they can afford the child or not?
Where is the sympathy, understanding and caring for the parents? Why forget about them and focus solely on their unborn children? Why NOT help them??
There are ministries, and organizations galore out there for women to take advantage of to help care for children. I am sick and tired of falsly being accused of not caring about the plight of poor moms. Simply isn't true.
But I will never give in to false "mercy" that says a killer walks free. You "mercy" folks are the ones out of ballance, and you devalue the life of a womb child with your pretencious crap. You have no mercy, or kindness left for the womb child, because you lavish it upon their killers. If a "poor mom" kills her born children, she meets justice handed down by a jury of fellow citizens. The same penalty should be handed down to those who kill their womb children. It is not me who is out of ballance here. I value the pre-born the same as the born. It is the false mercy crowd who constantly says that killer mommy dearest is of more value than the children she kills. That is no where near being pro-life. That is pro-killer scanc.
No, we say we realize that to save that baby, you have to help the mother. Both the mother and the child count equally. The fetus isn't more important.
I never said the womb child [fetus to you killer scancs] was more important than the mom. But you have stated several times that mommy killer dearest is more important the the "fetus"[I guess when you have killed 3, it is easier calling them a fetus insted of a child]. You keep confusing before and after. But that is what you enemies of the womb child do. Just keep throwing up your confussion. I am all for helping women before they kill their children whether born or pre-born. But when they kill their children, whether born or pre-born, then they should meet the justice handed down by a jury of fellow citizens. That is how we deal with murderers in this country. Your just lucky that murdering your children was legal. You are no different than andrea yates, and belong in a cell next to hers.

reply from: faithman

You are SSSSOOOOOO stupid and ignorant. The PL organization I belong to was started in 1972. One in Colorado was started in 1967. We have had Fetal development imagery WWWWWWAAAAAYYYYYY before roe. Only the willingly ignorant, who are trying to justify killing 3 would say such stupid things.
Then, oh wise one, why wasn't it used by Wade? People believed it was tissue because that was the conventional wisdom back then.
Don't try to revise history.
I am not revising history at all oh stupid killer of three. They had piles of information brought before them, and refused to look at it. The court was as big a liar as you are.

reply from: carolemarie

Of course I am different than Andrea Yates. It isn't the same thing at all.

reply from: faithman

That's not entirely true. There were people that opposed abortion in 1973, the very people that fought and lost the battle to keep it illegal. Was there a pro-life movement exactly? Not in the organized sense that we think of today, but people did oppose abortion.
As far as who was opposed to abortion, it was very often the scientific/medical community that opposed abortion with facts, not religion. That the Catholic church and other Christians also opposed abortion was always known.
There was information then, not as much as we have now but what he had then that we still have now is people who simply don''t care about the facts. They don't care that they are killing unborn children. The decision to abort is very matter of fact, business-like, cold efficient, mechanical and driven by money and greed.
However...
I believe that Obama may sabotage the abortion industry more than he could ever do to promote and normalize abortion. By taking a radical stand on abortion, and by removing what nearly all people understand to be rational and understandable restrictions on abortion, he will create a backlash against abortion. He will draw a massive amount of attention to the issue, even mong those who have never given abortion much thought. We must be prepared to ride the wave of a wild storm and be ready to raise our voices and make our cause heard to the nation and the world.
100% agreement on that one. The best way to poor a little gas on the fire, is by showing pictures of womb child development. It is not time to back down, but double our efforts.

reply from: Banned Member

The Catholic Church has believed that life begins as conception for 2000 years and Jews of the same line of faith for nearly 5000. God new at the beginning of time and before the beginning of time. What God wills is eternal! Life begins at conception.

reply from: faithman

OOOOOOHHH the self deluded. You are anything but. You are a viscious baby killer. Nothing more, nothing less.

reply from: carolemarie

I am not a baby killer.

reply from: carolemarie

Then why are most jews prochoice?

reply from: faithman

I think the is three that would say different. That is if you hadn't had them terminated. Lets see..... Heartlessly killing three....yepper, that would make one a baby killer alright. But you just keep on fooling yourself, even though you fool no one else.

reply from: 4given

Many of the Jewish faith believe that abortion is tolerable because the soul does not enter the body until they have exited the birth canal. That is how it was explained to me anyway. The soul enters in with the breath of life.

reply from: faithman

Then why are most jews prochoice?Because like you, they have betrayed the faith they claim to believe.

reply from: carolemarie

I think the is three that would say different. That is if you hadn't had them terminated. Lets see..... Heartlessly killing three....yepper, that would make one a baby killer alright. But you just keep on fooling yourself, even though you fool no one else.
I am currently not killing babies. I am prolife and have been so for decades. So it is incorrect to call me a baby killer.

reply from: socratease

Does the owner of this site know that extremely abusive and degrading posts have been made against you?
If so, it would be unconscionable that he/she would not intervene.

reply from: faithman

I think the is three that would say different. That is if you hadn't had them terminated. Lets see..... Heartlessly killing three....yepper, that would make one a baby killer alright. But you just keep on fooling yourself, even though you fool no one else.
I am currently not killing babies. I am prolife and have been so for decades. So it is incorrect to call me a baby killer.
You have admitted to killing three, that makes you a baby killer whether you have the guts to face it or not. But only a coward would kill three defencless
children, then try to use every justification to make excuse. It is absolutely correct to call you a baby killer because that is what you are in word and deed.

reply from: carolemarie

Its just the faux christians who want to be mean.
Most everyone else understands that you can change your position.

reply from: faithman

We're still waiting.... A murderer is still a murderer even if they never do it again. Simple fact baby killer.

reply from: faithman

Does the owner of this site know that extremely abusive and degrading posts have been made against you?
If so, it would be unconscionable that he/she would not intervene.
Then leave if you don't like it.

reply from: Banned Member

These Jews are wrong and intellectually dishonest. The Jewish faith of Jesus' time certainly understood abortion to be wrong. Even the Muslims understand abortion to be wrong. To be a pro-choice Jew is about as valid as being a pro-choice Catholic. No such viewpoint can exist. Abortion is wrong for anyone who accepts the first 5 books of the Bible. Abortion is murder. Abortion is evil. No compromises!

reply from: Banned Member

I was recently banished from a Catholic website for suggesting that children should be had in the sacrament of marriage and mother should not be celebrated simply because they didn't have an abortion. My views were taken as being too extreme and disruptive.

reply from: carolemarie

We're still waiting.... A murderer is still a murderer even if they never do it again. Simple fact baby killer.
And your point is?
And Bernard nathensom? is he a murderer and would you call him a murderer

reply from: 4given

These Jews are wrong and intellectually dishonest. The Jewish faith of Jesus' time certainly understood abortion to be wrong. Even the Muslims understand abortion to be wrong. To be a pro-choice Jew is about as valid as being a pro-choice Catholic. No such viewpoint can exist. Abortion is wrong for anyone who accepts the first 5 books of the Bible. Abortion is murder. Abortion is evil. No compromises!
I agree.

reply from: socratease

We're still waiting.... A murderer is still a murderer even if they never do it again. Simple fact baby killer.
If you've masturbated in the past but no longer do so, are you a masturbater?
If you've fornicated in the past, but no longer do so, are you a fornicator?
If you were a child in the past but now are allegedly and adult, are you still a child?
If you stole some money 20 years ago, but have renounced theivery and no longer steal, are you still a theif?
If you were an abortionist, but now are a prolife activist, are you still an abortionist?
I don't see the reason why you want to pin a label on someone because of their past, especially since that past seem to have been renounced.
Maybe it's a way for you to save babies? If so...how?

reply from: carolemarie

The best situtation is that women get married and have children. But when that doesn't happen we don't want to shame them. We want to help them and encourage them to have the babies, not abort them to avoid condemnation. That doesn't help anyone!

reply from: 4given

And they thought she should be "celebrated"? Wow. There is a new generation that wants to bend the Word and the teachings of the Church to better suit their lifestyle. Not just in the Catholic church, but in congregations across this land. Sad really. Rest assured that there are others that take the Catechism and God's Word seriously. I don't know where they are exactly, but there are at least a few of you left.

reply from: socratease

Could you provide a link to the site? I don't want to think badly of a Catolic site without cause, and would like to see the entirety of your comments in the proper context.
Is this site not prolife?

reply from: faithman

We're still waiting.... A murderer is still a murderer even if they never do it again. Simple fact baby killer.
And your point is?
And Bernard nathensom? is he a murderer and would you call him a murderer
He is, and I would.

reply from: carolemarie

What do you mean by celebrated? Given a baby shower? Being treated kindly or not being shamed and singled out for abuse?
A baby shower is for the baby.

reply from: Banned Member

Having been banned, actually... I can't provide a link.

reply from: carolemarie

We're still waiting.... A murderer is still a murderer even if they never do it again. Simple fact baby killer.
And your point is?
And Bernard nathensom? is he a murderer and would you call him a murderer
He is, and I would.
Well I give you an A for consistancy in being a rude jackass.

reply from: faithman

What do you mean by celebrated? Given a baby shower? Being treated kindly or not being shamed and singled out for abuse?
A baby shower is for the baby.Oh my Gosh!!!! It can say baby after all!!!

reply from: carolemarie

Fetus/baby mean the same thing. When I talk to prochoicers I use terminology they can understand. I thought you understood that they were the same. I apologise for confusing you....

reply from: faithman

You didn't confuse me at all. You don't have that ability. I see right thru baby killers. It's really not very hard actually. Kill 3. Brag about it. Yep! that would be a baby killer alright.

reply from: socratease

Can you say the name of the Catholic website, A?

reply from: Banned Member

Others were the ones who used the word "celebrated". I think that that some other way could have stated that choosing life is the right thing, but for a Catholic woman to say that single mothers should be "celebrated" for not having an abortion. First off, Catholics are compelled to wait until they are married before having children. Secondly, if you conceive out of wedlock, you had certainly better never be thinking about killing the conceived child to cover-up what you have done. Christians can celebrate life, but they should not be celebrating adulterous pre-marital relationships as such. We should never tear down marriage by virtue of being proud that we don't kill our babies.

reply from: carolemarie

You didn't confuse me at all. You don't have that ability. I see right thru baby killers. It's really not very hard actually. Kill 3. Brag about it. Yep! that would be a baby killer alright.
I am getting sick of being called names. Stop calling me a baby killer.

reply from: faithman

You didn't confuse me at all. You don't have that ability. I see right thru baby killers. It's really not very hard actually. Kill 3. Brag about it. Yep! that would be a baby killer alright.
I am getting sick of being called names. Stop calling me a baby killer.
You the one who did the deed. Live with it killer.

reply from: carolemarie

David killed a man to cover up his sin. Why would you think women wouldn't think the same way? It is human nature, even for a man after God's own heart....
it would take some courage to have a baby out of wedlock as a member of a Catholic community. It takes grace from others to live with the results.
I doubt they wanted to celebrate the relationship, but rather affirm the positive choice she made. That can be celebrated.

reply from: carolemarie

You didn't confuse me at all. You don't have that ability. I see right thru baby killers. It's really not very hard actually. Kill 3. Brag about it. Yep! that would be a baby killer alright.
I am getting sick of being called names. Stop calling me a baby killer.
You the one who did the deed. Live with it killer.
I am over it, I feel that you should get over it as well. God doesn't even remember it!

reply from: Banned Member

God doesn't want part of our goodness. God wants all of our goodness!
I view the sacredness of marriage as equal with the sacredness of life. I won't take a partial view that it's okay for women AND men to sleep around, so long as they don't have abortions.

reply from: faithman

Nice try killer. but if you can not respect the memory of the slain, we will. And we will never cease to cry out for justice on their behalf. You obviously are not over it, because I would not have anything to get over if you didn't bring it up by bragging about killing three.

reply from: socratease

In a world where so many are encouraged to take the easy way out, why not celebrate when someone chooses life over death, regardless of the circumstances?
There will be time enough to remind the woman that next time she should be married, but for now, I don't see the problem myself, and I'm assuming that they are not referring to practicing Catholic women, but to those outside of the faith.

reply from: carolemarie

How would you want these women to be treated then.

reply from: Banned Member

I know that it is no more easy being the child that is born out of wedlock than it is to be the mother of that child. I will not say that being a single mother should be celebrated. I will say that all human life should be celebrated because of its unique dignity as a human life and person. A life is worthy to live regardless of the circumstances of conception. That is why nothing justifies abortion, even of we do not approve of the circumstances of conception.

reply from: carolemarie

Is it okay for the parish to give her a baby shower? Are they allowed to offer her congratulations?

reply from: BossMomma

You didn't confuse me at all. You don't have that ability. I see right thru baby killers. It's really not very hard actually. Kill 3. Brag about it. Yep! that would be a baby killer alright.
I am getting sick of being called names. Stop calling me a baby killer.
Put him on ignore, he's not worth your time and he wont stop attacking you of his own accord.

reply from: BossMomma

A healthy pregnancy should be hoped for no matter the circumstances and a birth should always celebrated, whether the child has married parents or not. I loved how my church never brow beat me or looked at me with disdain. They gave me a baby shower and Sunday my new daughter is set to be dedicated to Christ. If only all Christians could be so tolerant.

reply from: socratease

If a Catholic were to become pregnant out of wedlock, she would have to confess her sin of fornication to the priest. (Even if she had not become pregnant, and that goes for the boyfriend too, of course).
Her prengancy is not a sin and neither is the child.
I don't see why she could not have a baby shower, or whatever. Those are not done by "the church" anyway, but are private affairs.

reply from: BossMomma

My church frequently has baby showers for expectant mothers, they also visit retirement homes and hospitals with baked goodies and donations to help improve the quality of life for patients. I participated when I could, though it wasn't often due to the fact that I was dealing with a risky pregnancy and was on bed rest throughout the last weeks.

reply from: Teresa18

What site was that? Was it Catholic Answers?

reply from: SRUW4I5

It gets annoying how so many people act like the woman got pregnant or had sex by herself, and forget the guy had anything to do with it. So, it's nice Catholics acknowledge that the man had something to do with it.

reply from: yoda

Don't you think you have a better chance of converting FMan to your side by being kind and gentle to him, and speaking from love rather than hate? Or is that reserved just for proaborts?

reply from: yoda

1. All proaborts know what "baby" means.
2. When you post on the open forum, you are speaking to all of us, not just to the proaborts.

reply from: carolemarie

Then there seems to be no problem, everyone knows what I am talking about.
That is good.

reply from: carolemarie

Don't you think you have a better chance of converting FMan to your side by being kind and gentle to him, and speaking from love rather than hate? Or is that reserved just for proaborts?
Do you think I am mean to Fman and treat him badly?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics