Good post, and mirrors my sentiments.

There is no question that we as a society should ban together to reduce abortions, but the current debate has made that almost impossible.

Abortion should be treated as a societal sin, not a personal one. I know this would be difficult for some but this mindset could lead to better, pro life, results.

Again putting words in my mouth (keyboard?) I didn't say (type?). Honestly I didn't feel like going down the abortion path again on this board. But was skimming the posts to see if there was anything new. I read a post, googled the quote, saw it was out of context, and posted a clarification. Then got my morality attacked by you.
My opinions on all of this are irrelevant, but you seem to want opinions from me. Realistically it's impossible to have 0 abortions. Some are medically necessary for the mom or the child. If we made it illegal today there would always be illegal abortions or women throwing themselves down the stairs or any number of other dangerous attempts to end a pregnancy that has happened forever. Making abortion illegal will just lead to more dangerous situations for women, and it will be "abortion for the rich" because they could afford illegal abortions or be able to travel someplace where it is legal. We'd need some sort of medical breakthrough and artificial wombs or something to get the number to 0.
I'm more interested in getting the number of abortions as low as possible, but by attacking the reasons women get them in the first place. Looking for spiritual answers, blaming demons, or whatever else you posted earlier will prevent almost no abortions. Sex education, healthcare, financial help, easy adoptions, etc. will go a lot farther to getting the number of abortions as low as possible.

PacifistAg said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

And is third trimester and T-"several hours from birth" the same? Given a baby just survived being born at 21 weeks, yes, they are the same.

---

Irrelevant point. No one is advocating all women line up to give birth at 21 weeks.

Characterizing people who seek abortions as sadists demonstrates a lack of caring about solving the problem. It's just a political talking point at that stage.

---

This. I tend to avoid this debate because it's become nothing but political talking points devoid of nuance. It's like the recent SBC resolution that was not passed (I think) on abortion. The conservative wing is furious an painting it as the SBC is unwilling to condemn abortion. In reality, the issue was with the language that called women who have abortion murderers, and that they should be punished as murderers. It makes no mention of the root causes of abortion. It only seeks to ban and punish.

I often get called pro-choice, even though I am adamantly opposed to abortion. It's because I don't believe a ban is the solution. I recently tweeted about the "guilt" of abortion, and how so many just want to lazily cast it on women, yet make no consideration of the men who may rape them, abuse them, or the inherent problems with a system that leaves women feeling as though abortion is their best option. Yes, abortion is immoral, but blanket bans without addressing root causes is not going to fix it. Casting all the blame on women, without any effort to understand their reasoning or desperation, won't fix the problem.

Everything is black/white, left/right partisan political garbage where real progress becomes nearly impossible.

---

Since this doesn't stray into other issues can we engage?

The church is compared to a body with many parts (hands, feet, etc.). What that means is that we all serve different purposes and have different giftings. Are you not concerned that this nuance you're bringing serves as a paralytic rather than catalyst? An eye can see the evil that is abortion but why should it be judged for not also being a hand or fit to minister in that moment? What use is denouncing the mouth for not disavowing all sin instead of the one presented before it?

Quad Dog said:

---

Again putting words in my mouth (keyboard?) I didn't say (type?). Honestly I didn't feel like going down the abortion path again on this board. But was skimming the posts to see if there was anything new. I read a post, googled the quote, saw it was out of context, and posted a clarification. Then got my morality attacked by you.
My opinions on all of this are irrelevant, but you seem to want opinions from me. Realistically it's impossible to have 0 abortions. Some are medically necessary for the mom or the child. If we made it illegal today there would always be illegal abortions or women throwing themselves down the stairs or any number of other dangerous attempts to end a pregnancy that has happened forever. Making abortion illegal will just lead to more dangerous situations for women, and it will be "abortion for the rich" because they could afford illegal abortions or be able to travel someplace where it is legal. We'd need some sort of medical breakthrough and artificial wombs or something to get the number to 0.
I'm more interested in getting the number of abortions as low as possible, but by attacking the reasons women get them in the first place. Looking for spiritual answers, blaming demons, or whatever else you posted earlier will prevent almost no abortions. Sex education, healthcare, financial help, easy adoptions, etc. will go a lot farther to getting the number of abortions as low as possible.

---

Yeah I think it's odd to say that someone forgot to mention it's for deformed babies and then duck out with no opinion as to whether that's ok or not. The idea that this nuance adds clarity instead of clouding it up more didn't make sense to me.

You view high barriers and risks to abortion as moral evils. I'm not sure I agree. If someone wants to endeavor to do something horrible to another human being do we not want to impose as high a marginal cost as possible to prevent all but the most determined from doing it? If the rich want to fritter their money away on it that's fine. I don't view moral evils as something all should be able to commit due to equity concerns.

I know we deviate on spiritual belief and that informs your solutions. We'll never agree on being able to fully resolve that with solutions. I postulated that for diehard because I don't want to call him a materialist but I think he has a bent to it so he deserves the right to offer clarification or correction if he chooses.

Edit: feel no need to respond. I was not trying to be hostile with my response. I appreciate your even tempered responses and historical honesty. I have no beef and know we won't agree. I was not soliciting a general abortion opinion (though thanks for giving it and engaging honestly), just curious about the deformities statement. Forgive me for how it came across.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Good post, and mirrors my sentiments.

There is no question that we as a society should ban together to reduce abortions, but the current debate has made that almost impossible.

Abortion should be treated as a societal sin, not a personal one. I know this would be difficult for some but this mindset could lead to better, pro life, results.

---

One idea I've had is likely not doable, but I think it would have a tremendous impact on cutting down abortions. This would, however, require the right to take money from their favorite sacred cow...military spending. Let's use 2016 numbers, which are undoubtedly higher since the abortion rate continues to decrease to pre-Roe rates.

1,000,000 abortions in the US. We'll use the high end for the costs of pregnancy from start to finish of $20,000. That's approximately $20 billion dollars. The US spends approximately $934 billion on military spending. Imagine taking $20 billion from military spending and offering to cover all pre-natal and birth-related costs for any woman considering abortion. If they participate, they must make the commitment to not abort (will pay back costs if they do). They can then either keep the baby or put it up for adoption. This would also need to be in conjunction with dramatically streamlining the adoption process and cutting the costs (upwards of $40,000).

Is it a perfect solution? No, but we need to think creatively and get out of this partisan political rhetoric where both sides use the most inflammatory language about the other. A world where there isn't real desire to move the needle either way, because the issue provides a powerful wedge issue that can be used by politicians to acquire more power without doing a damn thing. A ban won't work though, especially if nothing is done to actually address the root of these issues.

PacifistAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Good post, and mirrors my sentiments.

There is no question that we as a society should ban together to reduce abortions, but the current debate has made that almost impossible.

Abortion should be treated as a societal sin, not a personal one. I know this would be difficult for some but this mindset could lead to better, pro life, results.

---

One idea I've had is likely not doable, but I think it would have a tremendous impact on cutting down abortions. This would, however, require the right to take money from their favorite sacred cow...military spending. Let's use 2016 numbers, which are undoubtedly higher since the abortion rate continues to decrease to pre-Roe rates.

1,000,000 abortions in the US. We'll use the high end for the costs of pregnancy from start to finish of $20,000. That's approximately $20 billion dollars. The US spends approximately $934 billion on military spending. Imagine taking $20 billion from military spending and offering to cover all pre-natal and birth-related costs for any woman considering abortion. If they participate, they must make the commitment to not abort (will pay back costs if they do). They can then either keep the baby or put it up for adoption. This would also need to be in conjunction with dramatically streamlining the adoption process and cutting the costs (upwards of $40,000).

Is it a perfect solution? No, but we need to think creatively and get out of this partisan political rhetoric where both sides use the most inflammatory language about the other. A world where there isn't real desire to move the needle either way, because the issue provides a powerful wedge issue that can be used by politicians to acquire more power without doing a damn thing. A ban won't work though, especially if nothing is done to actually address the root of these issues.

---

How do people who are financially insecure and unsupported pay back the money (guttmacher study from earlier)? Many women already use couples trying to adopt for pregnancy costs and then ghost them (it's a problem with the current system). This will simply exacerbate the problem. It's like student loans all over again. Taxpayers should not be on the hook.

This isn't a budget issue. Every dollar spent on military funding isn't in any way a reduction in spending on anything else.

It also isn't a monetary issue. There are already free and subsidized prenatal care programs all over the country. A friend of mine is a doctor and their state was even going so far as to literally bribe people on welfare to come in for both prenatal and early child annual checkups with gift cards.

This is 100% a matter of convenience. For people who don't believe that the child is a human being, or who don't care, there is no moral argument that will sway them. The only way you fix that is to make it less convenient.

Quote:

---

You view high barriers and risks to abortion as moral evils.

---

I don't think I said this. I don't think I made any firm statements about morality. My post was much more practical, they usually are. My own morality thoughts are irrelevant. If I were to make a moral statement it would probably be more like "blaming women and offering them no help on unwanted pregnancies is a moral evil"

Quote:

---

If someone wants to endeavor to do something horrible to another human being do we not want to impose as high a marginal cost as possible to prevent all but the most determined from doing it?

---

Sure. But history tells us that there are many, many determined people out there. We know imposing a high marginal cost won't help the goal of as few abortions as possible.

Quote:

---

If the rich want to fritter their money away on it that's fine. I don't view moral evils as something all should be able to commit due to equity concerns.

---

If you want to talk moral evils, then I think setting up a system where the rich can have abortions and the poor are forced to have babies or resort to dangerous cheap methods is a moral evil.

This stance is absolute nonsense. Replace abortions with murders and you'll see why.

Quote:

---

Sure. But history tells us that there are many, many determined people out there. We know imposing a high marginal cost won't help the goal of as few abortions murders as possible.

If you want to talk moral evils, then I think setting up a system where the rich can have abortions murders and the poor are forced to have babies not murder or resort to dangerous cheap methods of murder is a moral evil.

---

Quote:

---

The only way you fix that is to make it less convenient.

---

The rates have been steadily decreasing since the early 1980's, and it seems to have just become more "convenient" during that time. The small spikes in the abortion rates have seemingly coincided with the times government has tried things like abstinence-only education. But greater access to birth control and education seem to have the biggest impact in driving these rates lower than their pre-Roe rates.

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

You view high barriers and risks to abortion as moral evils.

---

I don't think I said this. I don't think I made any firm statements about morality. My post was much more practical, they usually are. My own morality thoughts are irrelevant. If I were to make a moral statement it would probably be more like "blaming women and offering them no help on unwanted pregnancies is a moral evil"

Quote:

---

If someone wants to endeavor to do something horrible to another human being do we not want to impose as high a marginal cost as possible to prevent all but the most determined from doing it?

---

Sure. But history tells us that there are many, many determined people out there. We know imposing a high marginal cost won't help the goal of as few abortions as possible.

Quote:

---

If the rich want to fritter their money away on it that's fine. I don't view moral evils as something all should be able to commit due to equity concerns.

---

If you want to talk moral evils, then I think setting up a system where the rich can have abortions and the poor are forced to have babies or resort to dangerous cheap methods is a moral evil.

---

I don't know where you got your info, but go listen to the freakonomics podcast I linked on the first page.

Imposing a high burden of getting an abortion absolutely reduces the amount of abortions in society.

They talk about the huge increases in abortions that happened in areas that were extremely restricted before Roe vs. Wade compared to after.

bait and switch.

for people who are having abortions, it is a matter of convenience. arguing that the number of abortions is decreasing is not relevant to the reasons people have abortions.

access to birth control is about convenience too.

when the vast majority of abortions are about convenience, the way to fix them is to make it less convenient. qed.

I was responding to your comment about the way to fix it being to make it less convenient. But if the goal is fewer abortions, and the abortion rate has steadily decreased during a 40 year period in which it's become more "convenient", then perhaps making it less convenient isn't the "fix". My entire point is that creativity, not brute government force, is the best way to address the issues at play.

Quote:

---

This is 100% a matter of convenience. For people who don't believe that the child is a human being, or who don't care, there is no moral argument that will sway them. The only way you fix that is to make it less convenient.

---

It's not 100%. Majority? Sure, you can boil down all the "it ruins my life plans" reasons as convenience. I don't think health reasons, having a desire to ease suffering in the case of defects or even a lack of confidence in one's ability to be a mother is really convenience.

I'm not making a case for justifying abortion. its still wrong. But, again, our case falls on deaf ears when we oversimplify.

I suggest you look at the statistics on abortions. They are so overwhelmingly a matter of convenience that rape, incest, and actual medical reasons amount to a rounding error (typically each of those categories is less than 1%, incest is practically zero).

So, fine. This is 98% a matter of convenience. I'll trade the 2% for the 98%. No pro-choice advocate will. There's a reason.

You seem to be arguing about the abortions that aren't happening. I'm not concerned with those. I'm concerned with the ones that are.

We know that the vast, vast majority of the time convenience is the motivating factor for the abortions that ARE happening. How do you reconcile that?

Quote:

---

By 2002 in South Africa, for example, six years after liberalizing its abortion law, deaths due to unsafe abortion dropped by at least 50% and the number and severity of postabortion complications fell dramatically as well. Similarly, according to Nepalese government hospitals records, soon after abortion was legalized in 2004, the number of women admitted for complications of unsafe abortion and the severity of those complications declined markedly; pregnancy-related deaths in Nepal also declined.

---

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2009/11/facts-and-consequences-legality-incidence-and-safety-abortion-worldwide

Quote:

---

In countries where abortion was restricted, the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion had increased compared with the proportion for 199094, and the unintended pregnancy rates were higher than in countries where abortion was broadly legal.

---

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30315-6/fulltext

Quote:

---

Rather, according to Guttmacher Institute research published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2016, the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion did not decline between 2008 and 2011, but stayed relatively stable at 4042%. Likewise, the rate of unplanned births dropped by almost one-fifth, from 27 to 22 unplanned births per 1,000 women of reproductive age (1544).6 Unplanned birth rates declined notably among the groups of women who experience the highest rates of abortion: blacks and Hispanics, and those who are low income, cohabiting, have low educational attainment or are in their 20s. With unplanned birth rates down across virtually all demographic groups and the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion stable across virtually all groups, unplanned births were clearly not replacing abortions to any significant extent during this period. This, in turn, strongly suggests that the 20082011 abortion decline was not due to abortion restrictions.

---

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2016/03/new-clarity-us-abortion-debate-steep-drop-unintended-pregnancy-driving-recent-abortion

I know not all exactly argue against the point you made. I probably could have phrased my earlier statement much better. In short, it's not that clear.

There's also a point to be made here - one way to absolutely reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted or unplanned pregnancies.

Quote:

---

I suggest you look at the statistics on abortions. They are so overwhelmingly a matter of convenience that rape, incest, and actual medical reasons amount to a rounding error (typically each of those categories is less than 1%, incest is practically zero).

So, fine. This is 98% a matter of convenience. I'll trade the 2% for the 98%. No pro-choice advocate will. There's a reason.

---

how are you defining 'actual medial reasons'? I am seeing 12-13% for mother and child each...

I still think it's nonproductive to reduce all matters of financial situation, confidence, family situation, etc as "convenience" as well.

Zobel said:

---

You seem to be arguing about the abortions that aren't happening. I'm not concerned with those. I'm concerned with the ones that are.

We know that the vast, vast majority of the time convenience is the motivating factor for the abortions that ARE happening. How do you reconcile that?

---

Well, I think the ones that aren't happening is a positive, so I want to know what led to those not happening and try to increase that number. That seems to coincide with fewer abortions, which is a good thing and the goal we both desire.

And what do you consider "convenience"? I mean, if you're dirt poor and have no means to support a child, is that "convenience"? Single mother and absent father? Is that convenience? Because what is a matter of "convenience" for some is a make-or-break, rock-and-hard-place, situation for others where it's not viewed as "convenience".

Zobel said:

---

I suggest you look at the statistics on abortions. They are so overwhelmingly a matter of convenience that rape, incest, and actual medical reasons amount to a rounding error (typically each of those categories is less than 1%, incest is practically zero).

So, fine. This is 98% a matter of convenience. I'll trade the 2% for the 98%. No pro-choice advocate will. There's a reason.

---

This. And also I believe 40% of abortions are repeat patients so the education stuff is kind of overblown also.

So imho, abortion is wrong. The vast majority are done for convenience. I do not believe education has near as much to do with numbers as some folks do.

We all are sinners, but need to recognize that we are until we can change or repent.

There are two ways to decrease abortion, true change of heart(repentance), or restriction of access.

PacifistAg said:

---

Zobel said:

---

You seem to be arguing about the abortions that aren't happening. I'm not concerned with those. I'm concerned with the ones that are.

We know that the vast, vast majority of the time convenience is the motivating factor for the abortions that ARE happening. How do you reconcile that?

---

Well, I think the ones that aren't happening is a positive, so I want to know what led to those not happening and try to increase that number. That seems to coincide with fewer abortions, which is a good thing and the goal we both desire.

And what do you consider "convenience"? I mean, if you're dirt poor and have no means to support a child, is that "convenience"? Single mother and absent father? Is that convenience? Because what is a matter of "convenience" for some is a make-or-break, rock-and-hard-place, situation for others where it's not viewed as "convenience".

---

How do you measure something that doesn't happen?

And of course decrease in sexual activity outside of marriage.

There is a reason God is(was)so concerned about sexual immorality. It is because of all the harmful things that come from it. STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc.

I do realize that none of this will happen until Jesus comes back so I have relegated myself to just not wanting my tax dollars helping pay for abortions. And despite the Hyde amendment, tax dollars support abortions at a planned parenthood.

i think it's interesting that the number of abortions continues to fall even though i don't think anyone on here would posit that religiosity is increasing (or even maintaining a static level), nor is sexual activity outside of marriage decreasing in the USA.

Zobel said:

---

There's also a point to be made here - one way to absolutely reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted or unplanned pregnancies.

---

Quote:

---

I do realize that none of this will happen until Jesus comes back so I have relegated myself to just not wanting my tax dollars helping pay for abortions. And despite the Hyde amendment, tax dollars support abortions at a planned parenthood.

---

I must have missed the "ah **** it, just wait until I get back" part of the Sermon on the Mount...

Quote:

---

I do realize that none of this will happen until Jesus comes back so I have relegated myself to just not wanting my tax dollars helping pay for abortions. And despite the Hyde amendment, tax dollars support abortions at a planned parenthood.

---

Same. I also don't want my tax dollars helping to pay for the military either, or to fund organizations who discriminate against me.

Quote:

---

And what do you consider "convenience"?

---

convenience

1. fitness or suitability for performing an action or fulfilling a requirement
2. something (such as an appliance, device, or service) conducive to comfort or ease
3. a suitable or convenient time
4. freedom from discomfort : EASE

definition four

Quote:

---

I mean, if you're dirt poor and have no means to support a child, is that "convenience"?

---

yes

Quote:

---

Single mother and absent father? Is that convenience?

---

yes

Quote:

---

Because what is a matter of "convenience" for some is a make-or-break, rock-and-hard-place, situation for others where it's not viewed as "convenience".

---

I don't care. Incurring a hardship - any hardship - for something you chose to do is simply not a reason to end an innocent life. I can't imagine why that doesn't seem readily apparent to you, as a Christian.

schmendeler said:

---

i think it's interesting that the number of abortions continues to fall even though i don't think anyone on here would posit that religiosity is increasing (or even maintaining a static level), nor is sexual activity outside of marriage decreasing in the USA.

---

Actually sex is falling if I remember the studies correctly. Porn and tech addiction are fueling it.

Millennials seem to be less likely to have sex out of marriage, even though they don't view it as wrong. They also on average have fewer sexual partners than previous generations.

Quote:

---

I don't care. Incurring a hardship - any hardship - for something you chose to do is simply not a reason to end an innocent life. I can't imagine why that doesn't seem readily apparent to you, as a Christian.

---

I don't understand why you seem to be taking a hostile tone. I've already stated that I believe abortion to be immoral. I'm trying to find effective methods of addressing the situation that aren't dependent on mindless government brute force. What is a matter of "convenience" to you is not necessarily a matter of "convenience" to others. It's easy to sit and say that that person did this, or that, wrong. But for the person in the situation, it may not be as clear. So how do we address that from their perspective? How do we not be dismissive of their circumstances while working to minimize the number of abortions? Addressing their circumstances, especially among poorer minorities where IIRC we see more abortions, that lead them to making this decision is going to be more effective than prohibition.

I literally don't care what their perspective is. Their perspective is one that has concluded that murdering an innocent is a reasonable solution to a problem of ease, discomfort, or convenience in their life.

It is shocking language, and it is intentional, because that is precisely what it is. They value the ease, convenience, absence of hardship, absence of difficulty in their life more than they value a life that they chose to create through their own free will. There is no repackaging it. There is no ambiguity. There is no need to talk about circumstances.

Do you engage in the same excuses for people who murder when robbing others? Do we need to examine their situation? Do we speculate about how perhaps for them it isn't as clear that murdering someone is wrong. Or how about rapists? Maybe they need some rehabilitation, too?

Over a million lives a year are ended in the United States. This is outrageous, it is horrifying. I have zero patience for people making excuses that pretend to offer perspective but are really inviting moral ambiguity on something which is crystal clear. Especially and particularly for a Christian.

We do not condemn the world, but neither do we apologize or abdicate for our standards. I do not condemn those who do it, but I absolutely and unequivocally do not accept any reason of hardship whatsoever as a valid one for ending a life.

Quote:

---

I literally don't care what their perspective is.

---

Okay. Then progress won't be made, and this back-and-forth will just be fruitless. And yes, I do think we should look at the root causes of crime, such as poverty, systemic injustice, etc. Does it excuse behavior? No. But if we simply close our eyes and ears, then we can't address the root causes of greater problems.


**edit to add: if you don't care about their perspective, then why should they care about yours? At that point, it's just a race to control an inherently violent government and force one's own view on the other through brute force. I think there are better, more productive ways.

I looked at the root cause as they themselves report it. The majority are doing it for matters of avoiding hardship, i.e., convenience. You don't find that root cause compelling enough and want to go deeper about why they value ease more than life. I don't care to - that is far enough for me. There is no engaging with someone who values ease over life.

I don't believe anyone is saying we should try to better appreciate the circumstances that lead to abortion as a means to excuse it, but rather if we wish to solve a problem we need ti understand as best as we can.

Screaming murder in people's faces doesn't appear to actually solve the problem.

If my son does something wrong I take the time to understand why he made the choices he made, rather then just reiterate the moral stances he is already quite aware of.