Abortion Yack

August 2, 2005 | 17 comments
By

We know from experience that having an abortion thread that stays on topic is tough, especially if the topic is fairly narrow. Here’s a thread for all those general remarks you’re dieing to make. It’ll probably get shut down when the other abortion threads wind down,

17 Responses to Abortion Yack

  1. AnneGB on August 2, 2007 at 11:51 am

    I am solidly pro-choice. There was a time when I was pro-abortion. Because I was abused as a child, I believed it was better for an unwanted child not to be born. When I became active in the church and learned more, I realized that that little spirit would be born somewhere, perhaps, sadly, to abusive parents.

    I think using the analogy of abortion=murder is false. Abortion is much more complicated than that. That’s why I support choice.

    EACH case is individual and only God will judge, ultimately. I spoke some time ago with a young person contemplating abortion. I was non-judgemental, although I told her I thought it was the wrong decision. She asked me, “Do you think God will forgive me?”

    I said, “Of course He’ll forgive you. He loves you and He will if you get this abortion. But He cannot protect you from the consequences. I think the worst consequence would be regret, later. That is a pain you would have to go through. Ultimately, though, this is between you and God.” This girl had legitimate reasons for wanting to avoid pregnancy and I empathized with her agonizing choice.

    I do think abortion after the fourth month is very wrong. I think in many cases before that it could be wrong. But I am not going to be the one locking any woman up for it.

    I think I’ve said this before, but I don’t think a man has any place in this debate. Adam, you know I think very highly of you. I think, because of Betsey Pearl’s death, you are emotionally vested in seeing children live. So am I.

    But this is far more complicated than that. And until you’ve carried a child and given birth, you are not qualified to judge.

    I would always recommend against abortion, but no woman is going to take flack from me on this issue. She’ll suffer enough anyway.

    Somebody said they didn’t think Anna Quindlen wanted women to go to jail. Of course she doesn’t. I didn’t read the article, but I could see that line of logic. I’ve read it elsewhere on the bloggernacle. It’s a valid argument, I think. It was meant for shock value to make people think about what they’re saying, those “black and whiters” who don’t realize life isn’t black and white.

    THREADJACK, ADAM! I love Anna Quindlen’s books

  2. Kathryn Lynard Soper on August 2, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    Gee, thanks Adam! A great idea.

    Here’s something I’ve been dying to say:

    I hate how abortion discussions polarize so quickly. Neal A. Maxwell said that political change happens in the center. For any progress to be made, both sides must be willing to get off their soapboxes and talk to each other without hurling accusations.

    Many thoughtful women support abortion rights because they don’t see any viable alternative for women with all these unwanted pregnancies. Abortion has its roots in some deep-seated social problems. Pro-lifers need to be willing to address these as part of the debate, and have practical solutions to offer.

    Pro-choicers need to understand that the great ease with which a woman can get an abortion contributes enormously to the number of unwanted pregnancies. We’re not as careful as we would be otherwise because we know there’s a manageble way to “fix the problem” should it occur.

    The religious right has done just as much to hamper change as the liberal left.

  3. Steve Evans on August 2, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    You should have killed this thread before it was born.

  4. Kathryn Lynard Soper on August 2, 2007 at 12:19 pm

    Kaimi (http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3999#comment-230504), thanks for that info. I will read it with great interest. Note, however, that ectopic pregnancies, which I was specifically referring to, happen early in pregnancy, and wouldn’t require a D&E –or even a D&C, for that matter–rather, an injection to allow the body to reabsorb the embryonic material, or a laproscopic procedure.

    annegb:

    I would always recommend against abortion, but no woman is going to take flack from me on this issue. She’ll suffer enough anyway.

    Amen, and amen.

  5. Jeremy on August 2, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    Steve, you are so, so, SO bad.

  6. Adam Greenwood on August 2, 2007 at 12:34 pm

    Steve E.,
    in the exercise of my autonomy, I decided to welcome this thread to life. If you’ve never had a post, don’t judge.

  7. Matt Evans on August 2, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    Many thoughtful women support abortion rights

    It should always be remembered that MEN are more pro-choice than women, and WOMEN are more pro-life than men.

    “The religious right has done just as much to hamper change as the liberal left.

    This is not correct. Those seeking to change the status quo always need radicals. Faced with controversy, most people (probably 80%) just want to split the difference so the controversy goes away. Radicals move the center by changing the dimensions of the field. Samuel Adams was criticized for being too harsh on the king, as was Patrick Henry, but it is clear in hindsight that their rhetoric advanced the revolution despite contemporary criticisms. Similar charges about being counter-productive were leveled against William Lloyd Garrison and the flame throwing abolitionists, but no historians believe that now. By making activists appear reasonable to the public, radicals are necessary for political change.

  8. Kathryn Lynard Soper on August 2, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    Matt, thanks for that reminder. I said “women” because these are the people whose writings I have read or with whom I have communicated personally. The right would get more of these women on their side if a broader view of the problem were taken.

    By making activists appear reasonable to the public, radicals are necessary for political change.

    I would argue that radicals in this case often do not seem reasonable to the public.

  9. Steve Evans on August 2, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    I propose that Adam sue whomever told him that this thread would turn out not to be completely retarded.

  10. Kathryn Lynard Soper on August 2, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    Steve, that was lame. Really lame.

  11. Ray on August 2, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    Classis, Steve, both of them. Absolute classics. Callous and hilarious and SO wrong – like the best (worst?) of Monty Python.

    Thanks, Adam, for creating this thread. I understand why some might roll their eyes, but this is much better than having the other disucssions threadjacked constantly.

  12. Steve Evans on August 2, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    Kathy, it was that or comments about killing the babies of hairy Tibetan bovines.

    But seriously, what should expectations be on a thread such as this? At least I’m making with the funny.

  13. Adam Greenwood on August 2, 2007 at 1:07 pm

    Steve, that was lame. Really lame.

    Oh, now don’t you start too, KLS.

  14. Kathryn Lynard Soper on August 2, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    Don’t blame me–I’m a product of my environment.

  15. Matt Evans on August 2, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    I would argue that radicals in this case often do not seem reasonable to the public.

    Radicals are not reasonable to the public. (Hence “radicals”). They benefit the cause by making the _activists_ look reasonable.

  16. Kathryn Lynard Soper on August 2, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    Oh, I get what you’re saying. You mean, make the activists look mild by comparison? Yes, I agree with that. Sorry, Matt, I misunderstood. But there are radicals and activists on both sides of the abortion debate, and I’m simply saying that both sides are to blame for the communication breakdown.

  17. Matt Evans on August 5, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    I don’t think the abortion problem can be considered a result of communication breakdown or misunderstanding. I understand the pro-choice argument and they understand mine; like many other controversies, there’s disagreement because each side rejects the premises of the other. (Which is different from misunderstanding.) In this case the contested fundamental premise is the moral status of human beings between their conception and birth.

WELCOME

Times and Seasons is a place to gather and discuss ideas of interest to faithful Latter-day Saints.