A Faithful Confusion: Abortion, Morality and Roe v. Wade


Does it strike anyone else as discordant that in the middle of what many are calling  an economic crisis potentially on scale with The Great Depression, and as we pour $10 billion a month into an unjust and illegal war that is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of lives, we are still fighting for women’s most basic human rights – the right to make personal decisions about one’s own body?

Last week, the "On Faith" series in the Washington Post and Newsweek presented a question to a panel of religious leaders and others to foster discussion about John McCain’s and Sarah Palin’s campaign position opposing Roe v. Wade and the "morality" of abortion.

Specifically, the panelists were asked to respond to this question:

John McCain and Sarah Palin say it’s time to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. Do you agree? What is the right moral choice?

There is no other time that I can remember in my adult life when the hypocrisy of the "abortion debate" is so honestly revealed than right now. Our government tells young people they should not be educated about their own bodies, sexual health or ways to protect themselves from STIs or pregnancy. Our maternal mortality rates in this country keep us at 41st in the world – a travesty. We legislate consistent barriers to accessing contraception and family planning.  Our neediest children are being denied health care coverage. Yet we still need to throw our time and energy towards defending a woman’s right to a single private and personal medical procedure that has been codified in federal law since 1973.

Willis E. Elliott, a teacher, American Baptist minister and a consultant to Newsweek for thirty-eight years, writes in the "On Faith" series:

…..Finally, I am deeply concerned about single-issue, anti-abortion voters. I consider them immoral. Given the multitude of complex problems the United States is facing, this presidential election may prove to be the most consequential since the Great Depression. Why would anyone let the abortion issue determine one’s vote? Bad religion, that’s why. The worship of "human life." Fetolatry, the idolatry of sacralizing the conceptus/embryo/fetus. Religion can be such good news. I hate to conclude with this instance of religion as bad news. But I must.

 

Abortion, or more accurately, Roe v. Wade has become the point upon which the top spins for so many candidates’ campaigns, and a central issue for our presidential campaigns over the years. One case could simply overturn Roe v. Wade and potentially throw the legality of abortion to the states, or open the door to a federal ban on all abortions. The next president may have the opportunity to replace three justices which would easily throw the scales out of balance.

"On Faith", however, brings the issue specifically to religious leaders for a reason. 

As John Shelby Spong, a former Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, writes in "On Faith", about a possible roll-back of Roe v. Wade: "The motivation for this is religious ideology."

And if one needs reminding that religious fundamentalists work hard to conflate their religious beliefs with the moral absolutism and ultimately constitional law, Chuck Colson, founder of a Christian outreach ministry to prisoners, lays it out:

"…So yes, McCain and
Palin are absolutely right. Roe v. Wade was bad law, made at a time
when we did not have the scientific information we have now that life
begins at conception [emphasis mine]
. It should be revisited for that one point alone." 

This is precisely the point –  Roe v. Wade, to fundamentalists, is simply about their own religious views taking precedence in American law and medical science. After all, different religions have different ways of viewing pregnancy, embryos, fetuses and "when life begins" and medical science is clear that it is next to impossible to determine when pregnancy begins given that it likely happens differently with each one, within a certain timeframe after fertilization, which is also undefined by medical fact. To allow for Roe v. Wade to be overturned based on specific religious doctrines is poor reasoning.
Does Life Begin at Conception?VIDEO: Does Life Begin at Conception?

As Willis Elliott writes:

"…..Overthrowing a law is a legal choice, not a moral choice. The question confuses morality and legality…"

Religious Right Does Roe

Linda Hirshman, in her article in The Washington Post about what a post-overturned Roe v . Wade world could look like (hint: Handsmaid Tale) writes that in 1972, pre-Roe v. Wade, there was public sympathy for women seeking abortions and more interestingly…"religions weren’t much engaged in politics."

Since the rise of the religious right, however, or more accurately since the religious right discovered that Roe v. Wade could be leveraged as a hot-button issue for the more fundamentalist, conservative voters, abortion has become about "the lives of the innocent – the unborn." And because of this we have a manufactured controversy that pits woman against her fetus, woman against her own body. In Roe v. Wade, religious conservatives decided they had the perfect tool and created a crisis.

Voters were now asked to judge women’s personal choices using a fundamentalist, Christian framework and actually had the opportunity to impose their own extremist religious values upon all the women of the country, via their support for candidates who opposed Roe v. Wade. In the process, we became a society split. We now were compelled to debate the "right-ness or wrong-ness" of abortion. It was no longer about bestowing women with the legal right to access a safe, legal abortion but about moral relativity – about whether women should have abortions at all.  

Susan Jacoby writes:

I am not going to argue about the morality or immorality of abortion:
there is absolutely no way to discuss the subject with anyone who
believes that abortion is murder (and there is no way for anyone who
believes that abortion is murder to discuss the subject with me). What
people really need to understand is what overturning Roe v. Wade, which
could happen as soon as a Republican administration gets to appoint one
more right-wing Supreme Court justice, will mean in a practical sense.
This would leave the entire matter of abortion up to individual states,
where (especially in the South and the Middle West) the religious right
has much more influence in state legislatures than it does in Congress.
The result will be a return to the pre-1973, pre-Roe reality: the only
way for a woman to obtain an abortion, for any reason, will be for her
to travel to a state that allows the procedure. This means that
abortions will, de facto, be available only to women with enough money
and sophistication to travel.

 

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will not disappear. Legal abortion would remain out of reach for women without the means to travel and pay for underground abortions in the states that decide women’s bodies are up for legislating. But abortion would not go away. It would simply make it dangerous and illegal. The religious right likes to pretend that Roe v. Wade brought abortion to this country; as if pre-Roe v. Wade, abortion was not an option for women. This is of course absurd, and yet somehow we rarely discuss abortion pre-Roe except to say that many women were maimed and died from unsafe abortions. This is true, and unforgivable, but it’s only part of the story.

The truth is, that while Roe v. Wade did help to bring safety to a medical procedure that women accessed already, saving literally millions of lives, it never pretended to be nor could it ever be a comprehensive remedy for a range of reproductive and sexual health care challenges: unintended pregnancy, sexual health education, access to contraception, maternal mortality, health care for children born into poverty – to name a few. 

What Roe v. Wade did (and still does) is offered a prime opportunity for evangelical Christians and other fundamentalist religious leaders to convene around the perfect tool "to rebuild the foundation of the Republic as it was first founded – as a Christian Republic." They seem to forget that the first freedom is religious freedom. We’ve been fighting this religious war masked in many ways: as concern for the "unborn", concern for women’s well-being, and even as a battle over evil liberal impositions onto a powerless society. But it’s still an attempt to cover all Americans in the same fundamentalist Christian cloth. 

Abortion as Moral Dilemma Leaves Out Real Issues

Because the discussion about abortion, post Roe v. Wade, has become increasingly about its moral absolutism, rather than what it is sincerely about –  wanting to return the United States to a country ruled by Christian fundamentalism – we are left with an impossible argument that will never be resolved: is abortion "right" or "wrong"? And because we are consumed with this question, we overlook the true and real health needs of women.

In the "On Faith" discussion, Pamela Taylor, co-founder of Muslims for Progressive Values, gets to the very heart of how impossible it is for us to ever come to agreement societally about abortion when she talks about a woman becoming pregnant from her rapist:

Does the benefit of sparing a mother the harm of having to carry the product of a rape outweigh the harm of taking that child’s life? Some days I feel yes, some days I feel no, other days I feel that can only be decided by the woman herself.

And yet, as is the case with the global discussion we have had about legal abortion over the last thirty years, she goes on to say that she has a hard time justifying abortion access:

But can we morally justify absolving people for the consequences of
their actions when that absolution involves ending the life of another
person? My heart says no.

Ultimately, however, Taylor gets to a place where she explains how fruitless a moral discussion over abortion – or even Roe v. Wade – is when we are not dealing with the underlying issues. And though she is vehemently against abortion she does believe in governmental responsibility to women:

While I debate with myself about when abortion should and should not be
legal, it seems to me there are many concrete steps this country can
and should take to minimize the need for that debate… I believe we can go a long way to reducing abortions by changing the
way our society views sex, sex ed, and by reducing the costs of having
an unplanned child (whether you keep it or give it up for adoption.).

 

And this is where we should end up. If the discussion becomes about how we care for the public health of all Americans, the discussion becomes about health care for all, proper education, an understanding that unintended pregnancy and the choice to have or expand a family is a personal one, then we engage in a national conversation that focuses on public policy. Make no mistake – the debate over abortion is a controversy created by a religious right desperate for a political issue that would rally Americans around an agenda to keep the power structure on terra firma.

But they didn’t count on the fact that women will not be pitted against our own bodies or the life growing inside us. We understand that when life does grow inside our bodies, the connection is one only we can sustain or sever. We certainly can continue that public debate indefinitely – using Roe v. Wade and women’s own bodies as battlegrounds. In the meantime, our economy is crashing, our status as a noble leader around the world is plummeting, the health and well-being of our women and children are not being prioritized. Spiritual guidance? I think we need some right about now. 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • invalid-0

    The issue of abortion is not based on the ideals of one religion, but the morals of everyone. Is it a crime to commit euthanasia? Yes. Is it a crime to commit murder? Yes. When is a seed considered a child? Conception. When does abortion occur? After conception.

    This deduction clearly states that abortion is murder. Regardless if you think it isn’t, it very much is. Right and wrong is not subjective, and the fact that so many people become angry when defending abortion shows that they want to be ignorant to that fact. Also, it seems people for abortion are ignorant to the fact that the very person involved in roe v. wade, Norma McCorvey, never even HAD an abortion and is now an activist against it. Also, you seem to forget empowerment involves responsibility, and everyone should know the ramifications for having unprotected sex, as well as being prepared to care for a child.

    Do not even let me get into Obama’s economic and foreign views. If you support Obama you clearly have no knowledge of basic economy or the basics of capitalism for that matter. Let me point out that that statement is not meant to be insulting; I’m just stating the truth. If you would like to know why I say this, ask yourself: Who pays for government spending, and what does big government mean?

    • invalid-0

      The problem with your logic is that you think all people believe in all religions have the same morals, and that there is absolute scientific proof of when “life” begins. If the fetus was removed from the womb at 6 weeks it would not be able to sustain life on it’s own. And for those who believe that it is wrong under any circumstances, what happens if you have an etopic pregnancy (where the embryo attaches to the wall of the falopian tube). The falopian tube was never made to strech to accomadate a growing fetus, if the pregancy is not terminated, both the women and fetus will die when it ruptures. What about child rape victims, what about girls who are molested by there fater or grandfather. You believe that it is morally right for her to carry that child. Isn’t her mental and physical health important at all?

      But besides that, as the article said, if roe v wade is abolished it will not stop abortions, it will just make them more unsafe. What needs to happen is more education on issues such as contraceptives, safe sex, the morning after pill(which is not abortion since it stops conception from happening, it doesn’t destroy an embryo). There need to be more choices for underprivliged and poor women. The best option we have, whatever religion, whatever sex, whatever belief, is to reduce the amount pregnacy that happens and provide other viable options. Abortions will never stop, and overturning roe v wade will only create other problems, and other issues for the country to fight about.

    • invalid-0

      If you want to legislate life, refocus your energy to passing a law allowing the government to require that you, and everybody else medically able, give up a non-essential body organ to save another human life. OHHHHHHHHH wait just a minute – you mean it would affect me? Forget that. I only want to push my relgious views, unconstitutionally on others. Leave me out of this – right?

      Far more lives would be save by such a law that any change in abortion laws. that you would support.If you don’t support Obama you clearly have no knowledge of basic economy or the basics of capitalism.

      Now on to abortion. Our countries mortality rate for survival of pregnant women ranksw 47th in the world. That means 47 other countrys do better at saving a pregnant mothers life.

      You state your opposition to euthanasia but that is what you ask a woman to agree to as a very real possiblility in requiring she give birth to her unborn child.

      You state your opposition to murder but I’d be safe to bet you support the death penalty – and the Iraqi war.

      If you want to legislate life, refocus your energy to passing a law allowing the government to require that you give up a non-essential body organ to save another human life. OHHHHHHHHH wait just a minute – you mean it would affect me? Forget that. I only want to push my relgious views, unconstitutionally on others. Leave me out of this – right?

      Far more lives would be save by such a law that any change in abortion laws. that you would support.

      I’m certain you oppose suicide but your view would allow a woman, who knew a pregnancy would endager her life, to get pregnant as a route to suicide so that it would not affect her life insurance or her friends and loved ones view of her.

      You probably support the wrongly named Patriot Act. As I grew up the greatest and most frequent use of the term patriot was in refernce to those who had fought for our freedoms and died by the millions in or to presever our freedoms.

      Now, you right wing crazies have supported an administration that has told us just the opposite. They have claimed we must give up some of our freedoms in order to save some of our lives. The biggest example is over 3,000 lives at the World Trade Center but not ONE life in the years since.

      Again, selling the so-called Patriot Act was done by telling you to be afraid for your own life and to put that fear in front of preserving all of the freedoms millions have fought and died for in the past. The TRUE PATRIOTS.

      So you go out and vote for Bushes third term.

    • invalid-0

      This reply is pretty late, but…are you trying to make the claim that Obama is a socialist? Because frankly, anyone who believes that clearly hasn’t the vaguest clue what socialism actually is. You also seem to be suggesting, Anonymous, that everyone who is familiar with economics is a rampant capitalist, which is a bit of a claim (an untrue one).

      Also, why do anti-choicers make these absolutist statements about how ‘everyone knows life begins at conception’. Medically, life is considered to begin at implantation, although I get that anti-choicers aren’t all that fond of science or fact.

      Obama a socialist. Ha.

  • http://churchgalposts.blogspot.com invalid-0

    So here we are – our opposing views have just cancelled each other out and we’re still left with the question why women are still fighting for the basic human right to control their reproductive destiny?

    Why are we still fighting these same tired religio-fanatics who want to impose their standards of behavior on everyone else, who want to define responsibility as gendered passivity, who want to redefine medical knowledge as home-schooled biblical doctrine? Let me worry about my soul and salvation; if I’m damned then let me be damned.

    Morality, schmorality. These arguments go nowhere and serve to cloud the real issue: what is right with forcing a woman to give birth against her will?

  • invalid-0

    when does conception happen? and how do you diagnose it?
    science doesnt know and doesnt have any tests for this. a woman’s own body does not ever recognize conception. it seems like a strange thing to label the beginning of life.

  • http://opadit.livejournal.com invalid-0

    One thing I almost never see addressed, and which anonymous, above, avoids addressing, is the “abortion is murder” slippery slope.

    If abortion is murder, then the participants are murderers or accessories to murder. How far do you go? Do you execute the provider or just imprison them for life? Do you imprison the nurses and other support staff? How about the patient? The person who drove her to the hospital or clinic?

    Chances are, whether you know it or not, a woman or girl close to you has had an abortion. Should she be put on trial and go to prison? If you believe abortion is murder and that (as John McCain believes) that a human being acquires human rights “from conception,” then there’s a lot of people who should be doing a lot of hard time right now.

  • http://feministblogproject.wordpress.com invalid-0

    “Is it a crime to commit euthanasia? Yes.”

    It’s a crime, yes. But should it be? No. I think that a person who is sick, suffering from chronic illness or injury, with no end in sight and little to no hope of recovering, has the right to decide they would like to die. Nobody has the choice to be born. But I think we deserve the choice to die. And I think that people who would not want to allow a suffering relative or friend to choose to end their own life would be horribly selfish and cruel.

    Just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean it’s unethical.

  • invalid-0

    To the people who argue abortion is murder: If it’s a baby why can’t I safely surrender it by handing it over to the authorities when I’m afraid I might hurt it? Oh, that’s right, because it wouldn’t SURVIVE being handed over.

    When you come up with a method for a fetus to survive being removed from a woman, and make that method at least as safe and available as abortion, then we can talk about outlawing abortion.

  • amanda-marcotte

    Roe v. Wade was bad law, made at a time
    when we did not have the scientific information we have now that life
    begins at conception
    .

     

    I was not aware that Chuck Colson was especially ignorant.  Does he  think that people didn’t know how you got pregnant in 1973?  Contrary to the fevered claims of anti-choicers, there’s not really a big gap between then and now in scientific understanding of pregnancy. Or did someone just recently tell him where babies come from?

  • amanda-marcotte

    I think it’s an insult to consider a fertilized egg a person like a person is a person.  I think people deserve more respect for that.  Furthermore, I have never heard a reasonable secular argument for the idea that an unformed clump of cells should have right superseding a woman’s.  I’ve heard misogynist and superstitious arguments, sure, but not reasonable ones.

     

    So, your theory that everyone agrees has been disproven.  In fact, between 30% and 40% of American women will have an abortion at  some point, so my belief—that real human beings have more moral value than potential human beings—isn’t a outlandish view.  It’s worth noting that if you take the potential over actual moral viewpoint into consideration, you could easily morph into arguing sperm has more rights than women.

  • invalid-0

    Yeah but we now have something that they didn’t have back then – Massive Attack’s “Teardrop” music video!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6iUBd2D38E

  • invalid-0

    Does anyone remember the essay that the late Carl Sagan and his wife Anne Druyen(?) wrote for Parade quite a few years ago? I thought it was the best I have ever read on this subject–it is time to resurrect it if possible. They wrote that we do have freedom of religion in this country(though there are many fundmentalists who don’t like that part!) so we can only go by what science tells us–when Drs decide that life has ended for example when using donated organs they go by when brain waves have stopped–so the logical other side is when do brain waves start–indicating the beginning of consciousness. Right about the 4th month of gestation -which falls right where Roe v Wade allows, the first trimester is legal,the second can have restrictions etc. I personally do have some problem with unlimited access to abortion–I do feel there needs to be restrictions. Abortion should be the woman’s decision ONLY in the first 4 months based on the criteria of when the fetus starts to have brain waves indicating a separate consiousness–after that it should be only if the life of the mother is at risk or the fetus is so deformed that it will not live after birth. And I am so very grateful for emergency contraception–which means that a woman who was raped or had a contraception accident can make a decison BEFORE there is any chance that there is a consious human- 8 years ago my then 12 yr old daughter was raped and she was given EC at the hospital. I am horrifed that anyone would deny her that choice at such a terrible time–if she had had to carry a pregnancy it would have extended the horrors of that night for all of us(besides being risky for her health at her young age)–as it was she had nightmares and depression for months –finally settling down a bit after he was put away (we were some of the very few lucky ones in this as most rapists do not do any time)A few years later she went though it all again when he was released–can you imagine if she had had a child?! If my mother had been raped I know I would not have wanted her to continue a pregnancy–I would rather my spirit come back to her later! I wish both sides could take a more middle of the road approach to this contentious issue though.

  • invalid-0

    You would rather your spirit come back to her later? wtf?

  • invalid-0

    Some people (I am one of them) believe that you choose your parents and life situation before birth in order to work on a specific issue. I interpret the posted comment as an agreement before her birth between her “mother’s” spirit and her own. If the posters spirit agreed to be born to the mother, and the pregnancy happened too soon for the mother or was a product of rape and she decided to abort, the spirit that would have been in that child is not lost. It will return to the mother when she decides to gestate and give birth.

    But, I could be totally wrong in my interpretation of the original comment. In which case, sorry about wasting your time P-LA.

  • invalid-0

    Euthenasia in a multiple of cases is actually not a crime at all. In many cases, the family makes a decision to remove a person from support. Because this can be a painful process, the medical staff and family also consent to use morphine. The morphine ends any remaining life functions. You can call a rose a cat but it’s still a rose. You can call Euthenasia something else (common protocol, advanced directive, etc) but it’s still euthenasia. Color me unsurprised that You are wrong about the basic principles of these arguments.

  • invalid-0

    Thank you for taking the time to explain, TeeDub. I’m just wondering where the evidence for such an idea is, and gotta say I’m skeptical.

    Its definitely an intriguing idea – if a pre-conception life has the ability to communicate and reason, then its logical to assume that the post-conception/pre-birth life does as well. If that is the case, then abortion would be the deliberate killing of a thinking being that, by evidence of having struck a deal with the mother, has good negotiation skills.

    I do wonder though, if there are people out there who believe this idea of pre-conception spirit negotiations and support legal abortion, isn’t that an example of legislating a religious/faith belief?

  • invalid-0

    re evidence: Well, I guess there is as much evidence for this as say buddhism, christianiaty, etc. Meaning, some people say none, and some people say overwhelming amounts of evidence exist for their chosen beliefs.
    The idea of making an agreement with your birth parents tangentially relates to reincarnation and your “life between lives”. The reason I put this in quotes is because this is a phrase that is used by Michael Newton PhD. He uses spiritual regression to access memories of one’s life between lives. If you want more info on the subject, I would start with one of his books.

    if a pre-conception life has the ability to communicate and reason, then its logical to assume that the post-conception/pre-birth life does as well.

    In short, no. This is not the case but this isn’t the forum to further elaborate on this topic.

    I do wonder though, if there are people out there who believe this idea of pre-conception spirit negotiations and support legal abortion, isn’t that an example of legislating a religious/faith belief?

    Well, I am one of those people and no, it’s not an example of legislating a religious/faith belief. Just because I have that particular belief doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize the bodily autonomy of each woman on the planet, no matter her beliefs. It’s not as if PC people are trying to legislate everyone have an abortion. They are just advocating for the choice to abort, gestate, and/or parent….a choice every woman should be able to make based upon her own, personal beliefs and life situation. I would never use my faith as a foundation for legislation restricting choices for other women of different faiths, nor attempt to do so.

  • invalid-0

    Thanks for your comment teedub, that is not quite how I see it but close. This all has to do with one’s personal spiritual beliefs and we have freedom of religion! So abortion laws should not be based on any one religious group(such as Catholic which beleives life begins at conception) In my belief we are a separate human life once the spirit joins with the physical body –which can happen at any time from conception to birth. My own experience was that when pregnant with my first daughter I considered abortion(very early in pregnancy) because my husband at that time was abusive –but I had a dream in which she spoke to me-I decided to have her. Next child I did not feel any connection with her spirit until just days before her birth. Last one I felt about half way through. I know many people scoff at psychic connections –but why should my experiences be any less valid than the supernatural stuff of the Bible that so many people believe in?
    In Women’s Wisdom, Womens Wisdom by Dr. Christine Northrup she relates a story of a woman whose 4 yr old daugter started talking about how she had been about 4 inches long and in Mommy’s tummy but Daddy wasn’t ready to marry so she went away, but then she came back. No one knew that this woman had had an abortion 2 yrs before having her daughter, but her and husband and the doctor! There are many things in this universe that we cannot understand–and there are many religous and spiritual ways to see how it all works. That is why in a free country we can only go by what science tells us–as I said in my first post–when do brain waves indidcate that there is a separate consiousness?
    To PLA–since you are an atheist how do you justify this religious idea that there is a separate human consciousness at conception? Certainly it does not have anything to do with life–as sperm and eggs are alive too!

  • invalid-0

    You seem to be missing the point under the guise of giving someone “choice”. As I’ve stated, that in itself is a slippery slope. All things must be governed. If you wish to choose to have a child, then one must come to terms that responsibility accompanies that choice. Not only responsibility, but accountability as well.

    To think that morality lies solely in the realm of religion is pure ignorance. There is an absolute truth, and there is the truth fabricated by others thoughts. Through skepticism without close-mindedness, and the wish for knowledge, one can find the truth. If you cannot understand this concept in its simplicity, then one cannot have a credible argument based in morality (good and bad).

    Outside of the argument of rape, what gives a person power to choose whether or not she will have the baby? As stated before, when one makes a choice, they must offer their responsibility and accountability. If you do not want to have a baby, then why play a game of Russian roulette? As good as sex feels, it’s main purpose is procreation. To state that a person has the choice to take their child’s life because it’s her “power” is contradicted by the choice of not exerting said power on controlling oneself. It is such naivety that undermines the true values of the human race. Also, to use the argument that birthing can cause injury to the mother, we mustn’t forget that we don’t live in a perfect world. There will always be the possibility of complications, not to mention the possibility of complications while attempting an abortion.

    To another commenter that stated saying an unborn has the same rights as us is an insult; you seriously need to re-evaluate your thought process. We are not talking of an animal, we are talking of our own flesh and blood. Regardless of the stage of LIFE, we are all human, and to think lower of another human being is inhumane.

    Although I don’t want to go too much into euthanasia, I can say that living on artificial support is not natural, and cannot be considered euthanasia, as it goes against the will of the body. But, suffering is very much a part of life, and everyone must come to terms that we all must suffer at one point or another.

    I can continue on as long as needed to point out the contradictions in this pro-abortion way of thought.

  • invalid-0

    By the way, the scientific community acknowledges the fact that birth begins at conception. Sadly, this can be deduced with a common understanding of life, but such is the stubbornness of man.

  • mellankelly1

    By the way, the scientific community acknowledges the fact that birth begins at conception.

    You must mean something other than what you wrote.  Or perhaps you mean something other than parturition (the process of labor and delivery in the birth of a child)?  I cannot find any information in any medical sites that states that birth begins at conception.  Please point me in the right direction.

  • invalid-0

    …and say (Palin) our troops are doing “God’s work” overseas which includes killing children in Afghanistan because the adults around them are suspected Taliban, partly due to our so being understaffed on the ground air strikes are called in with the flimsiest of intelligence. If life is so sacred, why does conservatism advocate killing every budget item related to public school and public health for children? FYI: McCain scored 10% in the Children’s Defense Fund’s non-partisan survey on votes for children’s issues. That’s the first of two hypocrisies in the anti-abortion movement – force women to bear unwanted children AND make sure they get no help from the government. SANCTITY OF LIFE MY ASS.

    The second hypocrisy is failure to advocate for full rights of the unborn, while in utero. This means adding an army of federal jobs to determine who is carrying, so that our on-going census reflects each person (your word) from fertilized egg through whatever makes it past the birth canal. No half-measures, here, all females would be invasively monitored from the day they are born, because your precious embryo mandates recognition before DAY 1 and anything otherwise violates “equal protection.” Should whatever is fertilized fail to survive labor, an autopsy must be performed to determine cause of death and a death certificate must be issued, with prosecutions for negligence (I can see the still-born courts outnumbering the Wal-Mart courts in no time). Maybe one in every 1000 cases will warrant jail-time, especially if she’s black, so we’ll need more prison space. I pity the female who doesn’t have a screen over her vagina when she uses the bathroom because losing anyone (again, your word) who fails to implant is destruction of evidence.

    Loads of taxpayers’ money will be dedicated into R&D for nano-detection and its deployment. And, of course, there’s the question of dignified disposal of remains (could you at least settle for cremation or is that against your religion, too).

    I call every “pro-lifer’s” hand because while my cards aren’t good, YOU’VE GOT NOTHING! You’re the same people who don’t want big government, but if you had your way on birth control (admit it, you want to ban it all) I’d seek to hold you to your idiocy by dumping the biggest government upon US for the above-listed reasons and laugh at you while you lament your 100% tax increase. At worst, I’ll get none of the big government we should have in your utopian society, but you’ll still be the greatest hypocrites to walk the Earth – and you will be accordingly judged!

  • invalid-0

    Exactly, Christopher! That McCain, that warmongering lunatic, can call himself ‘pro-life’ with a straight face just astounds me. It astounds me even more that people actually believe it. I mean, this is a guy who jokes about bombing people. Yeah, so very pro-life.