Loading ...Majority of Americans say abortion ‘morally wrong’
flockwoodThis poll was done for the Knights of Columbus, an anti-abortion pro-Catholic group. The findings are consistent with other polls. What is interesting, to me, is the generational differences. Senior citizens and young Americans are more likely to say abortion is morally wrong than baby boomers.
ONE NOTE: This poll does not show that most Americans want to ban abortion, only that they find it to be immoral. That’s a big difference.
Majority of Americans, and Nearly 6 in 10 Young Adults, View Abortion as Morally Wrong
Poll finds 56% of all Americans and 58% of those 18-29 years old say abortion ‘morally wrong’
NEW HAVEN, Conn., Jan. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On the eve of the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the United States, a new survey shows a strong majority of Americans believe abortion to be “morally wrong.”
“Millennials” (those 18-29) consider abortion to be “morally wrong” even more (58%) than Baby Boomers (those 45-64) (51%). Generation X (those 30-44) are similar to Millennials (60% see abortion as “morally wrong”). More than 6 in 10 of the Greatest Generation (those 65+) feel the same.
The most recent Knights of Columbus – Marist survey – conducted in late December and early January – is the latest in a series of such surveys commissioned by the Knights of Columbus and conducted by Marist Institute for Public Opinion. In October of 2008 and July of 2009, the survey has
been tracking an increasing trend toward the pro-life position – a trend confirmed by Gallup and Pew surveys in mid-2009. K of C – Marist surveys are available online at www.kofc.org/moralcompass.
“Americans of all ages – and younger people in even greater numbers than their parents – see abortion as something morally wrong,” said Supreme Knight Carl Anderson. “America has turned a corner and is embracing life – and in doing so is embracing a future they – and all of us – can be proud of.”
He added: “Advances in technology show clearly – and ever more clearly – that an unborn child is completely a human being. That, coupled with the large number of Americans who know one of the many people who has been negatively affected by abortion are certainly two of the reasons that Americans are increasingly uncomfortable with Roe v. Wade’s legacy of abortion, and with abortion generally. The majority of Americans now understand that abortion has consequences, and that those consequences are not good.”
The question on abortion was part of a larger survey, which will be released in the next several days.
This report presents the findings from a survey of 2,243 Americans — including an oversample of 1,006 Millennials. Reports for Americans have a margin of error of +/-2% and for Millennials it is +/-3%. Data were collected from December 23, 2009 through January 4, 2010 using an online, probability-based panel from Knowledge Networks, Inc. Additional information is available at www.kofc.org. Data on the polls commissioned by the Knights of Columbus are available at www.kofc.org/moralcompass.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:32 am
One should immediately question any poll conducted by a group which has an extreme position on the issue. The Knights of Columbus website article has some pretty charts which summarize the results but is missing other critical data, like the list of actual questions used in the poll. Any reputable pollster will tell you that results can vary a lot depending on the wording of the questions, the order in which they are asked, and other factors.
Frank, I’m glad that you commented on an important observation, that the poll results do not address the question of whether people believe that abortion should remain a legal option. It doesn’t bother me a whit that Catholics consider abortion to be a mortal sin, or that most Americans regard abortion as immoral when it is unnecessary. It is intolerable, however, that a religion arrogantly decides that personal liberties should be constrained for all citizens merely because of that church’s theological teachings.
January 23rd, 2010 at 8:02 am
I should say I’m very much in favor of keeping abortion available and legal, and I also doubt the objectivity of data gathered by the Knights of Columbus. That said, sure–abortion is morally problematic. Ultrasound has taught many of us to not be so sanguine about this issue.
LOTS of things in our society are immoral: war, capital punishment, poverty, racism, corporate greed. Some of these, according to many people, are totally unavoidable. Abortion is perhaps immoral, but so is bringing an unwanted child into the world.
January 23rd, 2010 at 12:24 pm
The fact is that most everyone thinks abortion is morally wrong. No one I know, and I hang with a pretty liberal lot, says that they want more abortions. Abortion is simply a lesser evil than bringing unwanted children into the world, and legal and safe abortion is a lesser evil than back room abortions were.
Drinking to excess is morally wrong, too, but we allow the sale of alcohol. Murder is morally wrong, and yet we sell guns knowing that a percentage of them will be used for murder. Public policy often includes allowing or regulating things that we wish we didn’t have to, but history has shown that women will abort unwanted pregnancies even if abortions are illegal; they just won’t do it safely.
January 23rd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Its about the same as 19 year old soldiers fighting our wars, its the way that society has been structured.
January 28th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
“..personal liberties should be constrained for all citizens merely because of that church’s theological teachings.”
Jose, you ignored important ethical question of life. It is true that we are born free but with limitation. We can destroy a thing what we can create. Life we can not create, so we can not kill a life. You and I (human) are not product of mercy of our parents, in other words our children are not product of our whim. Killing a process of human formation is equal to killing a born baby by through it into a dustbin. If we do not protect unborn babies being human who would protect them? No human is unnecessary even a deformed baby if we can give them enough resources to grow. For example modern medical technology could separate joint twin successfully. If society welcomes a rapist’s baby, s/he wouldn’t be an antisocial. Antiabortion law is right for unborn babies. It is not only church teaching, but also teaching of humanity. There are many NGOs who would be happy to welcome the baby in this world with their whole heart by protecting privacy of the mother if she does not want the baby.
January 29th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Julian, the question is far more complicated than that. I think most people agree that abortion is morally questionable at best. However, making abortion illegal raises all manner of even worse social ills. For example, it has been shown statistically that the crime rate in the US fell dramatically after the implementation of Roe v. Wade, and that states, such as New York, that had legalized abortion prior to Roe experience the same phenomenon.
I have asked any number of conservatives what they intended to do about the crime wave that would be created by the number of unwanted children flooding the market if abortion were banned, and so far no one has given a coherent answer. I have also asked many conservatives about the problem of women having unsafe and illegal backroom abortions, and no one has a coherent answer for that, either.
I would think that if the conservatives were going to make de-legalizing abortion one of their priorities, they’d have at least a facially coherent argument on these things, but they don’t seem to, which suggests to me that they truly don’t understand the issue.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Caleb, in Roe v. Wade case, judge upheld woman’s privacy right over natural law of right to be born. One is ethical and the other constitutional question. The majority people are now in dilemma, with our own law we superseded natural law and again we can not avoid our conscience to uphold natural law. Is this verdict implies that we are more civilized allowing mothers to break natural law of birth at her will (privacy), because now we know how to break birth process safely, than the past? Majority’s answer probably would be no, and thus they say that abortion is morally wrong. If you support abortion, do you support capital punishment? If not, why?
If we say unborn baby is criminal, because of a son/daughter of a criminal we are dehumanizing ourselves. Even though there is anti-corruption law, but still there is corruption in every sphere of life. These could not be justification for allowing abortion.
January 30th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
You’re right, Julian, the point of Roe v. Wade was to restore a woman’s right to an abortion to the right that she had under the common law of England and under Roman law, both of which were arguably based on natural law. The doctrine utilized for this was the so-called right to privacy, which is as close to natural law as one gets; some have suggested that all positive law arises out of the right to privacy, often described as the right to be left alone.
The reason that abortion in the first trimester was made illegal in the first place was not because of any concern for the baby, but because up to that point most live births were attended by, and most abortions performed by, midwives who were not physicians.
When physicians began delivering babies in large numbers late in the 1800s, they wanted to freeze midwives out of the market. It was then thought that the Hippocratic Oath prevented physicians from performing abortions themselves, and not being able to participate in the abortion market, they lobbied to make it illegal for everyone, which all state legislatures in America did. The earliest Kentucky reported opinion that I know of mentioning abortion is Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky. 204(1879)(a case cited by Roe v. Wade, by the way), which holds that, at least in 1879, abortion of a fetus prior to the time the fetus became “quick” in the womb, a period usually defined roughly as the end of the first trimester, was not a crime in Kentucky. This was consistent with the common law at the time, an unbroken line of authority going back to Roman times.
So, Julian, if abortion is indeed a violation of the natural law, it took us a couple of thousand years to find it out.
January 30th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Caleb, abortion is indeed a violation of natural law. If we see our ancestors as per Darwin’s origin of species, the ape or other animal, keeping aside our Christian believe on creation of human, we find no other animal have any assistance in their delivery and no other animal come for abortion on purpose. So bringing human character of privacy in justifying abortion in reproduction system is irrelevant and on the contrary violets natural law of right to be born. Doctors are to protect life not to terminate life. If doctors interfere in our natural system, as they are gradually trying to interfere in changing our genetically composition by genetically engineering, one day we would not only miss the linkage of our origin from the image of our creator Holy God, but also from humanity and would be a super human without any LOVE. Genetically alteration and abortion are encouraged for commercial purpose rather than pain of a victim.
Doctors are not for abortion, doctors are not for assisting suicide. HUMAN are not for killing other human, neither in abortion nor in capital punishment. Even it may be late but still we are getting civilized, like knowing war are worst than expending kingdom, as it happened in the past.
January 31st, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Okay, Julian, let me ask you three questions that no anti-abortion person I’ve ever known has ever given a straight answer to:
1. If we make abortion illegal, what do you intend to do about the crime wave that will follow?
2. If we make abortion illegal, what do you intend to do about the flood of women seeking unsafe back room abortions that endanger not only the unborn child but the fully born mother as well?
3. What specific alternatives will you offer to mothers who do not want to or are unable to care for their now-unborn child?
It seems to me that if people want to upset a legal precedent that has been in place for over 35 years that has worked well, they need to offer some actual alternatives that go beyond saying abortion is morally wrong. Did it ever occur to anyone that there was a REASON that BOTH political parties were in favor of the legalization of abortion at the time (of course, the Republicans use it for political hay now, but don’t actually do anything to make abortion illegal), and most religious groups approved of Roe v. Wade?
It’s because that the laws that made abortion illegal for the prior hundred years or so were not working. First, rich women simply went to other countries to obtain abortions. Second, poor women, who could not afford to fly to Sweden for an abortion, ended up with backroom abortionists who were little better than butchers. Do we really want the prospect of women staggering into emergency rooms with coathangers hanging out of them again? These are serious issues, and if one is going to make policy recommendations, one should deal with them.
The real issue is that abortion was made legal in the US in 1973. Most women seeking abortions today weren’t even born in 1973. They have lived for two generations with abortion in America safe and legal. We have forgotten the reason we made abortions legal and safe in the first place, and I pray that we won’t have to go back to the bad old days in order to remind a new generation of Americans why we changed the law in the first place.
January 31st, 2010 at 7:33 pm
4. From a biological standpoint, at what point does personhood begin? Why? If a religious group believes that personhood begins earlier, should their theological teachings replace the objective, secular criteria that we generally use as the basis for law? In other words, should our secular legal system be used to enforce church doctrine on citizens who, as a matter of faith, do not accept the authority of that church?
5. A just-fertilized ovum is much more similar to an unfertilized ovum than it is to a viable fetus. Given that fact, would you be sympathetic to someone who might contend that life begins not at conception but instead at ovulation? In order to play it safe, would you agree to laws that prohibit a woman from murdering her unborn child, meaning that each female would be forced to be fertilized every ovulation, beginning with the onset of puberty? Why not?
Interesting to see the claim that medical technology today makes abortion completely unnecessary. That’s just not true. Even more interesting that someone uses conjoined twins as an example. A few years ago in Houston, doctors separated a set of conjoined twins. One infant died almost immediately, as the doctors expected. If the doctors had not operated then both twins would both have lived, though their lives would have been extraordinarily difficult and painful. The doctors were not charged with murder, but instead were congratulated for doing the best that they could given the circumstances. To me this was a clear case of intentionally ending the life of one infant to improve the quality of life of the other. Right now I’m neither condemning the doctors nor condoning their actions. Instead, I want to highlight the absence of outrage by so called pro-life groups. And to repeat, when anyone says that technology can fix all problem pregnancies neat and clean, that statement is a lie.
* * *
Caleb, I’m embarrassed that you suckered me back into this. I had given up on fruitless arguments where one side is unwilling or unable to engage in a meaningful dialogue. If someone wants to speak without really listening, or if they take a serious subject and make silly arguments for sport, or if they just are not capable of understanding basic arguments but keep shouting anyway, or if they make bold and unjustifiable assumptions and then refuse to back them up, then I don’t want any part of it. It’s a waste of our time and a waste of my patience.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Ahh, Jose, we try to apply logic to these issues, but unfortunately logic is not always the prime motivating factor in public policy. Political hay and emotion are on the rise, now that so many people have forgotten what things were like under the old law.
February 1st, 2010 at 6:19 pm
No answers yet? Let’s add a few more questions. The broad question is this, does personhood really begin at conception? Here are a few scenarios to help us decide. In each case you must answer how many persons there are. If that changes sometime during the process, indicate the point in time and explain why. I will gladly admit that these are not typical pregnancies. That’s OK, because we learn our boundaries by examining the extremes. It’s important to understand that while these cases are not typical, they are nonetheless natural and they are definitely real. If the principle of “a human being begins at conception” is inarguably clear then one should surely be able to explain how it applies in these simple cases.
6. Identical Twins
One egg, one sperm, one conception. The embryo splits and forms two fetuses. Can we agree that there are two persons born? At what point does the second person come into being?
7. Vanishing Twins
The embryo splits as for identical twins, but soon after it rejoins and develops as a single fetus. One baby is born. Was there another person at any time? What happened?
8. Conjoined Twins (separable)
One conception and one embryo which then partially splits. The resulting fetus is almost two complete bodies joined together. At birth there is one body but with separate heads and limbs that act independently. Sometime after birth this one body is surgically split into two. This is two persons, right?
9. Conjoined Twins (nonseparable)
This is similar to the one above but is much closer to one whole person than two. A baby is born with spare parts attached, like an arm or a leg but no head. There’s not nearly enough of the second baby to make a body that survives, so doctors just amputate the extra parts. If conjoined twins are always two persons, then it would be true in this case, right? Is the amputated limb a person?
10. Chimera
This one is rare but it really does happen. Two eggs are fertilized separately in two conceptions, leading to two independent and genetically distinct embryos. (This is the traditional fraternal twin situation thus far.) However, sometime early in the pregnancy the two embryos fuse into one fetus. The result appears to be a single healthy baby, with one head, one torso, two arms, two legs, etc. However it has two distinct sets of DNA. Is this one person or two?
February 1st, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Caleb, if we summarize your 3 questions it stands like this a) abortion directly related with crime wave b) abortion reduces back room abortions that endanger unborn as well as mother and c) finding alternative solution for mothers who do not like their born babies.
To answer all these questions in nutshell I would like to say enhance awareness of moral value of the society that would increase awareness of responsibility for an action which have consecutive results. Moral value of life’s end result is to love for other life which is coming, as ourselves, thinking our birth was also in the same way. Potential mother must be aware that unsafe love making in bed may results in bringing her involvement in life making process which she can not terminate at her will, like a mother can not kill her born baby even though she may not like to take responsibility. It is natural selection (God). I can not kill a tiger even though I have power to kill it by a gun.
We can not take life making process lightly, if we can band guinea pigs testing in laboratory we should also band disruption of human reproduction. Like any other responsibility or risk we take in our life we must take responsibility of baby that comes out of our love making. In question of raping, where mother is unwilling to accept the baby, Government/NGO would be happy to accept the baby. We got to believe because it is true that no child is born as a criminal. Society makes a child criminal by allowing a child raised in a criminal environments. In my previous posting I pointed out that though there is anticorruption law still there is corruption behind the door that does not mean we would allow corruption. We can not take law at our hand by doing illegal abortion. Once we apprehend that reproduction system is not man made system that we could play with this system at our will once it started by formation of gamete (union of sperm and ovary) whether in early stage or in later stage. Every action have a opposite reaction. If we make love results may end up with responsibility. There is no easy escape by termination, like killing. Moral value would bring not only happiness but also prosperity of individual life and be a good citizen of a nation. It is encouraging that teenage pregnancy rate has been reduced.
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:25 am
I see responses above but no real answers. How disappointing, since Caleb asked clear questions that could be answered specifically. Here are a couple more.
11. The process of becoming a person begins prior to conception and continues until after birth. There are multiple distinct events (ovulation, conception, implantation, birth) and long periods of smooth develop (in utero, postnatal). Based on objective observable facts, can you be sure that there IS a single point in time marking the instant that a person begins? Why?
12. Legally, ethically, and theologically we also have to face the question of when a human life ends. How can we apply our observations there to the same question of when a human life begins? If the same rationale for “life begins at conception” were used to determine end of life, then how would that differ from the commonly accepted definitions today?
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:53 am
Julian, that’s all very nice yah yah Sunday school fluff, but how about answering my questions? Particularly, what are you going to do about the resulting crime wave? And don’t say it’s not coming, because for all of your fluff, you know as well as I do that society is not perfect and all the NGO’s in the world won’t stop it.
Also, what about the back room abortions? You don’t seem to address this, either.
Julian, your solution seems to be for everyone to just be good. If that were a solution, we wouldn’t need laws against murder or theft. The problem is that people are never as good as you want them to be. All my life, I’ve worked in fields that used live ammunition. By that, I mean that when I sued someone, real money was at state, and when I’ve taken political positions, real issues were at stake. It seems to me, Julian, that you are interested more in what people should do than in public policy, which usually comes down to what the rest of us do when other people don’t do what they should. I am never impressed with people who shoot blanks, Julian, and that’s what you’re doing. Re-load with live ammo, and then respond.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:51 pm
“The problem is that people are never as good as you want them to be.”- Caleb
I agree with you Caleb. But with this truth do you want for example, to change your anti-corruption law to allow those people who take bribe in a business as a normal business transaction and make company more profitable? In any case people are indulged in kickback despite your existence of anti-corruption law and taking high risk being in a prison for life. Your answer to this question would be your answer to your 2nd question, “2) If we make abortion illegal (anti-corruption law), what do you intend to do about the flood of women (persons who take bribe) seeking unsafe back room abortions (kickback) that endanger not only the unborn child (company profit) but the fully born mother (individual) as well? To me your question is like crying for a law breaker.
By educating women as well as men about the seriousness of life would reduce significantly unwanted babies and aware them about their responsibilities if accident happens. Today’s national evening news of ABC broadcasted that teen pregnancy has been significantly dropped due to awareness of moral value, abstain from sex until marriage and trusting on God. Life is not a joke, nor a pleasure in a bed that you would take as a “Sunday school fluff”. By the example of killing a tiger by a gun as stated above, I mean women at their will and doctors with their dollars as remunerations can kill the life making process, but in both cases it is morally wrong. You are learned corporate lawyer, and I hope you understand this point is not an empty sound of a bullet, it is real.
Your third question “3) what specific alternatives will you offer to mothers who do not want to or are unable to care for their now-unborn child? This problem is not something new to our society and federal government under Department of Health and Human services (HHS), Administration for Children and Family (ACF) have been serving public for this situation.
Your 1st question, “1) If we make abortion illegal, what do you intend to do about the crime wave that will follow?” I understand with this question you mean unwanted babies would be criminals in future. Caleb, I do not find language to criticize this humiliation to humanity false statement. You know by constitution we all are equal irrespective of where we born. As a Christian you also know that God does not create junk.
In my previous posting actually I answered your 3 questions but apparently we were not in alignment to see the answer. Let me know if you need further clarification about importance of life as we are enjoying now and let other to come. Do not be selfish in nature. If you do not want baby, practice safe sex, no one would object to your will.
Jose, Your question is challenging for human and up till now no one knows the answer but God. We know new life begins construction at the conception, but we do not know when soul appears in a normal baby as well as complicated babies. We should not make human as a guinea pig to find out your answer, but until then we should obey natural of law of right to be born, as we are and not to interfere in our reproductive system starting from construction (conceive) till death. As a Christian irrespective of any denomination we should open our God given inner eyes to see inception of life and its end.
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:25 am
It amazes me that people can decide when life begins or ends all in a justification for behavior modification or in this case an abortion. What if abortion was illegal, what conclusions have backroom abortions on the rise? Have you no credit to the advancement of society? Are you saying that a certain social group would automatically lend itself to this particular medical practice because its no longer available legally? Do you assume that certain Doctors would be performing this or would it be out of work mechanics? I really would like to see the economic statistics of abortion, how the women fair in the climb for social status plays a role in this. Its a much more complicated issue of when life begins, the one sure thing is it ends life.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:24 am
So, Julian, your answer is the same: If everyone is nice to everyone, people will be good and there’s no problem. As usual with conservatives, your answer is to ignore the problem and bury your head in the sand, hoping it will go away. I figured as much, but wanted to give you the opportunity to say something substantive if you wanted to.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:50 pm
“If everyone is nice to everyone, people will be good and there’s no problem.”
Caleb, it seems to me you are from a different planet and naïve about complicity of life under this planet earth. You are unaware that with implementation of any law we still need correction center for certain % whose behavior would never be changed. There would be some woman, no matter what, would perform abortion in backdoor, jeopardizing life of both mother and issues. Q# 1) who should be blame for illegal action, society or victims? # 2) where did you find for truth that unwanted babies create crime wave? Please answer to specific questions only.
It is commonsense law that you can not break a system, unless you can make it. The reproductive system is not man made system that you can break it whenever you want. That is why to me abortion is violation of natural law, which is illegal.
“…your answer is to ignore the problem and bury your head in the sand,..”
Caleb, I am looking North direction and you, by looking south, advising me that I did not see the problem. To be in same page let us define the problem to identify the problem. Problem: Is abortion natural right of humanity? My answer is no and I explained by above posting and support majority people’s view on this subjects. What’s your answer, is abortion natural right of human? In replying to the question, please be consistence to your Christian value also, I know you are Christian. Because neither you nor anyone else would be able to answer the question “when does soul come in and out of our structural body?”
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Whatever, Julian. I’m trying to talk social policy here, and you’re talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I hope this works for you in your life, because it sure wouldn’t work in mine.
As far as the data I cite for the crime wave theory, that’s from Steven Levitt and John J. Donohue’s fine article on the subject; a trip to Google will bring it up. As far as the origin of the right to abortion, that is from Roe v. Wade. But that’s not the point. The question is whether to change that law. In order to make that decision, one has to look at actual facts, not pie in the sky. So far, you’ve dished out lots of pie, but no social policy, other than the whole head in the sand thing.
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Julian, you can’t have it both ways. Either you know for sure when life begins or you don’t. On the one hand you assert that “We know new life begins…” and on the other hand you say “…no one knows the answer but God.” This is ridiculous. There are 12 questions above. They are serious questions, intended to enlighten the entire readership. Some of them are extraordinarily simple. A person with honesty and character would be able to attempt to answer. You did not. You are quick to talk about terms like life and death as though everyone has the same understanding, and then you twist away when pressed for definition. That’s not right and it’s not fair. Even worse, it’s a poor reflection on Christianity because it feeds the criticism that the Christian faith is afraid of the truth.
One thing you did make very clear, that it is impossible to have a meaningful dialogue with you over any matter of substance. I’m done trying.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:50 pm
“The question is whether to change that law.”
Caleb, to find an answer to that question I asked you a simple question: is abortion natural right of human, especially for a Christian? Instead of straight answer you spin around the answer. We wanted to hear your opinion out of your life experience along your faith. But rather you danced with Steven Levitt and John J. Donohue’s fine article and Roe v. Wade verdict. You may dance, because you have natural right, but I do not, because it does not speak truth about life and whole universe we exist. Please be noted I am a natural human, not created in a lab, so I prefer natural law. It is up to you whether you like to upheld natural law or not, choice is yours and I have respect for your choice. You must not forget that people’s faith and social policy are inter-related. As long your faith is for well being of people, no policy would come up that effect badly to majority of the people. I believe that man made law can be changed any time as needed but not the natural law.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Julian, I’ll tell you exactly what my faith tells me. My faith tells me to be serious. My faith tells me to take issues seriously, and to make public policy that works for people. My faith tells me not to sit around trying to decide when life begins or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We’re talking public policy here, not philosophy.
So far, I have never read anything, either by you or anyone else, which gives any social policy reasons for changing the law. I personally find many things that are perfectly legal quite immoral, but for public policy reasons do not seek to change the laws.
As for natural law, it, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Abortion in the first trimester has been legal for 1800 of the last two thousand years that we know of, going back to Roman times. So, one supposes that if people believed in a particular concept of law for nearly two thousand years, and there was no groundswell of support for changing it, it might well be the proper manifestation of natural law. Abortion was illegal in most of the United States for not much more than 100 years, and there was such a hue and cry to change the law by the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s that virtually no one in public life favored the continuation of the old laws.
Julian, buddy, if all you’re ever going to do is say that abortion is immoral, therefore we should outlaw it, and not ask the follow up question, of whether the alternative is going to be worse, you’re not dealing seriously with the issue. The problem is that so many other people also refuse to deal honestly with the issue. Again, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that these issues have only begun to come up after two generations have lived with safe and legal abortions, having forgotten the problems of the past.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
“…that it is impossible to have a meaningful dialogue with you over any matter of substance. I’m done trying.”
Jose, this is a dialogue of an arrogant person, who finds that his way is the only high way. Didn’t you find any interesting difference between your point of view and mine on the abortion issue? I am amazed at your comment and finding you impatient in reading others point of view with interest. Let me cite an example from your past writing that would show point of difference between yours and mine. In your initial posting you blamed Roman Catholic Church for influencing their Church doctrine of antiabortion into public life. I voiced my opinion by saying that antiabortion is not only Catholic value but also for all followers of Christ, as well as for those who believe on natural human and humanity. I emphasized implementing “natural law of selection” over abortion, in delivering normal and healthy baby or in worst case complicated and painful delivery (include your 12 cases). If you have difficulties understanding “natural law of selection” at birth in this context, that is different issue. Thank you any way for contributing your thoughts on current national debate like prolife vs. prochoice.
Caleb thanks for your comments also, even though I do not agree with your concern on pro-life and its impact in social life. To me impact is secondary issue in selecting pro-life or pro-choice and that should be discussed separately for social justice.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Julian sez: “To me impact is secondary issue in selecting pro-life or pro-choice and that should be discussed separately for social justice.”
Julian, I thought that’s what we WERE discussing; at least, that’s what I was discussing. The problem with dealing with true believers is that the impact of their opinions is, to them, always secondary to being ideologically pure. That’s fine, Julian, you be ideologically pure and let the rest of us do the social policy. I’m done talking, too, and am sure everyone else is glad.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
The problem true believers have are the semi believers selective beliefs.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Another things that troubles the anti abortionists is what part of “thou shalt not kill” doesn’t the pro abortionists get. If you can honestly distort this law , what are you going to with the others? How then, can you call yourselves Christians?
February 6th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
I know a lot of pro-choice folks but have never met anyone would could properly be called pro-abortion. On the other hand I know a bunch of people who call themselves pro-life Christians, and rarely are they pro-life in any sense except on the matter of abortion.
To imply that that anti-abortion rights bloc is consistent on the matter of God’s commandment is misleading. To call a pro-choice person “pro-abortion” is simply a lie. But Perp did make one true statement, that people who honest distort the truth in one area shouldn’t be trusted.
February 7th, 2010 at 10:34 am
No one is pro-abortion. Everyone would rather see a child be carried to term and born healthy to two loving parents who are capable of raising that child in a stable, family environment, but sadly that is not always the case. Unfortunately, in the world we live in, parents do not always love their children, children are not always born healthy, and complications can arise. When circumstances as these arise, women need to have every option available to them.
I don’t fault the pro-life movement for attempting to save the lives of human beings. I think it’s important that people be encouraged to take care of their children as best they can. But I don’t believe criminalizing the procedure is the best way to do it. If you want people to make “the right choice,” you need to educate and empower them. And throwing them in prison for making a choice that you yourself would not have made is the best way to do neither.
By all means, pro-lifers encourage people to “choose life.” But allow them to make their choice without fear of prosecution.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Well said, Cheese. Well said indeed. I think you accurately portray the pro-choice movement, certainly as I know and understand it.