Obama’s Life Story Now an Anti-Abortion Ad

While much of America was watching the inauguration of President Obama, BET viewers were seeing Obama’s life story turned into … Continued

While much of America was watching the inauguration of President Obama, BET viewers were seeing Obama’s life story turned into an anti-abortion ad.

In the 41-second ad, sponsored by catholicvote.org, a camera slowly zooms in on a fetus in a womb as these words appear on the screen: “This child’s future is a broken home. He will be abandoned by his father. His single mother will struggle to raise him. Despite the hardships he will endure this child will become the 1st African-American President.” The ad ends with a photograph of President Obama and this message: “Life: Imagine the Potential.”

Brian Burch, executive director of catholicvote.org, told PRNewswire that the ad is the first in a series that will use the same tag line. “Our message is simple: Abortion is the enemy of hope. The purpose of our new ad is to spread a message of hope about the potential of every human life, including the life of” Obama.

The ad comes amid heightened anxiety that Obama will abandon or reverse pro-life policies established by President George W. Bush.

Cardinal Francis George, president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, sent Obama a letter asking him not to change policies that ban federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, protect federally funded health care providers who have a moral objection to abortion, and prohibit federal dollars being spent on abortion in foreign countries — the so-called Mexico City or global gag rule that Obama is expected to reverse in the coming days.

Catholic bishops and others also have expressed concern that Obama will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify women’s right under Roe v. Wade to terminate their pregnancy and would forbid any interference with that right.

“We are committed to not only reducing abortion, but to making it unthinkable as an answer to an unintended pregnancy,” George wrote to Obama. “If your goal is to reduce abortions, that will not be achieved by involving the government in expanding and promoting abortions.”

It’s good to see pro-life bishops and ads taking a more positive, proactive approach to such a difficult and divisive issue. But as Anthony Stevens-Arroyo noted in his “Catholic America” blog for On Faith, the “FOCA paranoia” of Catholic bishops is misguided.

As for the ad, using Obama’s story to argue against abortion seems disingenuous at best, exploitive at worst. Obama’s parents were married when he was born. There’s no evidence Obama’s mother ever considered an abortion. And as my Dallas Morning News colleague Bruce Tomaso points out, “couldn’t you make the same argument about anyone? If Tim McVeigh’s mom had had an abortion, might those 168 people in Oklahoma City still be alive?”

On the other hand, if the ad prevents just one unnecessary abortion, maybe it’s worth it. Who knows? That one child could be a girl who grows up to be the first female Pope. Imagine the potential.

Written by

  • DCFem

    Another disingenuous point (and one that could be easily turned around on the makers of this ad) is that President Obama was born in 1961, twelve years before abortion became legal in America. Not only is there no evidence that his MARRIED mother ever thought of having an abortion, they fail to mention the obstacles she would have faced in trying to have one if she had.I wish the rabid anti-abortion folks would join us in the 21st century and realize that promoting birth control reduces the number of terminated pregnancies by not allowing unwanted children to be conceived in the first place. Yes, access to condoms may lead to an increase in the number of teens having sex, no one can deny that. But the greater good will be the decrease in abortions, teenagers having children they are ill equipped to care for, and the spread of diseases like the deadly HIV/AIDS. Birth control can accomplish all of that and we all need to start talking about it more freely in this country. It’s common sense.

  • jimfilyaw

    this is so tiring. not only are these birds obsessed with taking away the freedom to choose, they are opposed to birth control in any form or fashion. talk about a paradox! they are slavering at the bit to interject themselves into the bedrooms of america. with all the scandals arising from widespread pederasty in the roman church, you would think they would have little time on their hands to tell the rest of us how we should live our lives. they can go straight to hell.

  • ACNonPro

    Wow…the ad also suggests that it would be normal for a white woman pregnant by a black man to consider abortion.

  • dgblues

    Wow — would it be fair for Planned Parenthood to use George Bush as an argument FOR abortion in a blue-blood traditional family with immense wealth in order to avoid the unmitigated disaster his eight years have wrought? I mean, if you were an Iraqi and prone to belief in the supernatural, you might easily convince yourself that he is Satan Incarnate after he slaughtered your loved ones to bring you “freedom.”Zealots have no morals. We know that.

  • outlawtorn103

    I saw some of the protesters marching around the White House today, the vast majority of them teenagers who got a day off from middle and high school to attend.I wonder if they see the same irony I see when they march around with signs that read “We choose life”.No one is arguing to take away their right to choose life. Under the pro-choice banner, each and every one of them is protected to choose life each and every time they want.——–It is similar to these ads for a Capetown newspaper showing a picture of the WTC on Sept. 10th 2001, stating that you shouldn’t miss a single edition of the daily paper.

  • jp1954

    The National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ position on abortion is just the thin edge of the wedge. Their larger purpose is state control of all aspects of human sexuality. They oppose non-procreative sex and they intend to use the power of the state to suppress it. All people who cherish freedom should be very, very concerned about the National Conference of Catholic Bishops agenda.

  • ALLOST

    When the anti-abortion folks are truly ready to end abortion they will confront the real issue here. The men who help make these unwanted pregnancies and then walk away leaving scared, financially strapped women to carry, birth and raise these children on their own. No one is telling these men what to do with their bodies. No one would dare.

  • bevjims1

    Good article David. I liked the counter position, that if Tim McVeigh’s mom had an abortion 168 people might not have been killed. Its equally disingenuous but points out how disingenuous this ad is.I’ll bet the ad also showed a fetus older than 3 months, the end of the first trimester when abortion is legal. The disingenuous nature of the ad is to be expected since I haven’t seen an ad that does not lie or exaggerate an abortion. But I’m all for explaining to people that abortion should be a last resort and carrying a fetus to term has good outcomes that should be considered in a woman’s choice. I’d just like it to be explained without the religious hysteria of “millions of murders” (yes CCNL, I’m thinking of you).What I never hear the anti-choice folks saying is that no matter what the law says, abortions will happen, just as they did before Roe, except then it wasn’t just the fetus that died. Keep abortion safe, legal and rare. Problem with the church is I see little in the way of helping those who are pregnant, just religious stigma awaiting any Catholic girl that chooses against abortion. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t really applies here.

  • carolyn912

    If you’re pregnant, doesn’t that mean that something’s gone RIGHT after having had sex? You can’t outlast us…we’re the only ones having a lot of kids and not damaging them with our selfish ideals. Good luck getting help in your old age.

  • WandaE1

    The commercial is old news. I found out about the commercial a couple of days before it aired and shared it with others on Facebook; many on Facebook have now changed their profiles to include a link of this video.Personally, I think the commercial is wonderful and a real testiment to the potential of human life. In this day and age, it’s too easy to dehumanize the situation and make it appear that killing an unborn child is no big deal. I mean, really, have these pro-choicers really thought about the heinous crime that is being committed and the way the poor child feels the pain? Would THEY want to be subject to this same pain?Just because abortion is legal doesn’t make it right. I hope FOCA will not pass. Period. Abortion is and always will be murder no matter how much Planned Parenthood and others try to sugar coat it.

  • neon_bunny

    These holier-than-thou know-it-alls, if they’re so concerned about stopping abortions, would find their time better spent ensuring that women have access to affordable birth control. (I pay a whopping $59.00 every month and that’s after my insurance’s “contribution.” That’s $650 every year.)Or how about pushing for a more generous social safety net for families? Or better sex education in public schools? No, like the other posters have pointed out, these people are obsessed with sex and sexuality and want to control every part of it.

  • Paganplace

    I mean, not to get too ‘earthy and Pagan’ about it, but actually condoms are a great way to inject a little reality into the situation. Also, pretty often, to ensure that any premature spooing is going on nowhere near fertile bits. :)

  • Vajrakilaya

    They’re more concerned about nonviable bits of protoplasm than they are about flesh and blood people. It’s the modern-day version of “straining at gnats and swallowing camels.” “Holy” mother church is so worried about small clumps of cells that she endorses corrupt, murderous, war-mongering Republicans who oppress the poor.Let’s remember – these old men in dresses don’t want you to have birth control either, folks. No condoms, even if they protect you from AIDS. Remember the Middle Ages when “Holy” mother church supported totalitarian thugs (kings, princes, and knights) instead of the people? Same thing now, except the godly thugs they support are Republicans.

  • republican_disaster

    I love how you right-wingers claim exclusive rights to God.

  • dickfncheney

    The problem is that advocates on both sides of the issue forget there are at least two lives to consider in each situation. Either choice will likely save one but destroy the other.

  • Alex511

    fr wandae1:>…Abortion is and always will be murder no matter how much Planned Parenthood and others try to sugar coat it.Sorry, incorrect. Murder is a crime. Abortion is a LEGAL medical practice.

  • ny_view

    Is this a new article or an op-ed piece? Certainly not objective reporting (if this is an option section, then it should be designated so more clearly). The ‘clever’ counterpoint is a bit perplexing to me. Is the argument that the human in early development (or unborn child or fetus, as ‘scientifically’ designated ) could commit a crime in his/her life? Given this possibility, it is then acceptable to choose to end the fetus’ life? The point of the ad is that we do not know how the fetus’ life will turn out based on the economic/social situation of the fetus’ parents. Therefore, the decision to end the life of a human in early development cannot be justified based on the socioeconomic status of his/her parents.

  • slavicdiva

    The National Council of Catholic Bishops’ agenda is what Roman Catholic priests’ agendas have always been – to control people, especially women. At one time, priests being the few literate people used their ability to read and write to control the ignorant masses. After it became common for ordinary people to be literate, priests used fairy tales about invisible beings and hellfire to control people. And who were the people they most wanted to control? Women. Who brought us the Inquisition, and who was getting off on torturing all those women “heretics”?Pre-Vatican II, women had to wear headscarves to church, so that their hair would not “tempt” men into having “impure” thoughts (hey, how about the men control their own thoughts?). Priests have always had a fear of the power of women, especially their sexuality; why else would priests have gone to such lengths to minimize the role of women in the life of Jesus, and to marginalize women as much as possible through church doctrine? Fear, pure and simple.Now these men, who allegedly have vowed to give up sex (I say “allegedly” not only because of the pedophilia scandal, but also because of numerous priests, bishops, etc. who have fathered children throughout the ages) want to stick their long noses into ordinary people’s bedrooms. Most particularly, they want above all to control women’s sexuality.MYOB. If you care so much for those poor fetii, go adopt some. Be sure you support the mother before the child is born. Put your damned money where your mouths are – stop marching, stop wanting to control others, and care for those who find themselves pregnant, and for the children they bear. Then maybe you’ll be saying something worth hearing. Right now, you just make noise.As for the ad, it’s nauseating and intellectually disingenuous. How about if Hitler’s mom had aborted him?

  • Alyosha1

    For those of you lashing out at “holier-than-thou” religious bigots who are “more concerned about nonviable bits of protoplasm than they are about flesh and blood people” you should get your facts straight. That might be a legitimate criticism of some religious conservatives who are married to Republican ideology, but it is not a fair criticism of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the largest single provider of social services in the world. It provides more free meals, education, health care, shelter, and support services than any other organization, period. The Church “walks the talk” when it comes to caring for people from the womb to the tomb. Without these efforts we would be in a heck of a lot bigger mess than we are already in. Even just here in the USA, our governments (national, state, and local) don’t have anywhere near the resources to care for all the people who would be in need of services were the Catholic Church to stop doing what it does. Now that doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is off-limits to criticism. But at least try to make it intelligent criticism that doesn’t reveal your own underlying bigotry.

  • williamwertman

    Am I the only person to notice that the Vatican denies all sacraments to the unborn yet says, in the Code of canon Law, that a seriously ill child can be made one of its usbject, even over the objections of the parents? Does the RCC really believe the unborn are people if they deny them baptism even if the parents want it and the fetus is dying?

  • jsypal

    to alex511:Abortion IS murder because it is the taking away of an innocent human being. The fact that it is legal is an injustice.As far as the ad, I thought it was outstanding. It’s not implying that Obama’s parents considered having an abortion, it’s trying to make the point that every human life has potential and look at where that potential could bring you. Yes, Obama was from a broken home in the sense that his father abandoned him and his mother when Obama was 2. Yes, she struggled to raise him as a single mom and he ended up living with his grandparents. But, look at what the joy of a child brings to people. Obviously his mother and grandparents gave him a lot of love and nurturing to get where he is today. I think the point of the CatholicVote.com ad is that life has incredible potential. Abortion squashes that.In addition, everyone assumes that abortion is always the best choice for the mother who has an unwanted pregnancy. But, that is the biggest lie out there. There is SUCH emotional damage from abortion that the mothers have to deal with…maybe some don’t. Maybe it depends upon how far along you are when you have an abortion. But, I can tell you that I have read/heard more witnesses from women who have had abortions and regretted it because they didn’t fully understand the consquences and felt misled by the propoganda.Abortion is terrible all around and maybe there are exceptional instances where it might make more sense (I don’t believe that ethically, it’s ever right, however I’m a pragmatist about this), but that only represents such a small portion of abortions. In my opinion, there is never a need for late term abortions (past the 1st trimester).

  • elife1975

    Alyosha1 said: The Catholic Church is the largest single provider of social services in the world.I’m going to have to call you out on that one. Total BS.

  • mmd4

    Legalized abortion is misogynistic, and has racist overtones. First, it allows men off the hook completely. With legalized abortion, they don’t have to worry about paying child support or doing right by the woman – hey, it’s her body, it’s her problem, her “choice.” Those bunches of “medical waste” couldn’t possibly have fathers, right?Using Obama in the ad was clever, and not just because he is pro-abortion. Blacks are disproportionately aborted. Planned Parenthood (“Klan Parenthood”) targets poor, urban areas where black fathers have disappeared and don’t take responsibility for their children. Abortion kills more black children in three days than the Klan ever killed. Look into the founder of Planned Parenthood – Margaret Sanger. She had similar views to the Nazis about blacks, the mentally handicapped and the poor – that they should be eliminated from the population. Although blacks make up a relatively small portion of our total population, they make up a much larger proportion of abortions. Just see the Guttmacher Institute statistics. (Guttmacher supports abortion rights). “Klan” Parenthood gets over $300 million taxpayer dollars a year, but still wants more. It gave a lot of momey to Obama’s campaign. He’s going to have to pay the devil now.

  • jflo234

    People, this is very simple…the Catholic Church is not trying to control your bodies. They are, however, supporting a simple commandment ” Thou shall not kill” . This applies to the unborn, new born and those convicted of crimes who sit on death row. This is not a conspiracy to limit your sexuality…this is about speaking up for those who dont have a voice and can not protect themselves. The Catholic Church does not support killing of one human by another in any form. That being said, how many pro-choice people are also anti-death penalty and why?

  • ny_view

    Why is everyone discussing the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church is irrelevant here. The ad is attacking the contention that abortion is justified/ acceptable if the socioeconomic outlook of the fetal is poor. The McVeigh and Hilter counterpoints are what the ad is criticizing (i.e., the ad implicitly assumes people think that poor socioeconomic conditions lead to a bad life). That is, one of the main arguments of abortion supporters is that the future quality of life of a fetal and her/his parents could poor. However, no one can predict with absolute certainty the future of a given fetus’ life and her/his parents.Abortion, therefore, cannot be justified based on current socioeconomic conditions.

  • iiell

    Welcome to the Free World. Accept the fact that people have the right of choice. If you cannot accept that fact, you should leave.Thanks

  • elife1975

    Speaking of christian hypocracy, this is one I don’t understand: The christian right protests stem cell research, which could very well save and enhance the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children who currently suffer unbearable pain on a daily basis while trying to live their life. But they will ram an SUV in to a Planned Parenthood in defense of a blob of cells (as in St. Paul MN today). Stay out of our bedrooms, stay out of our wombs.

  • wdrudman

    It’s real simple… if life begins at any point before birth and you want to prosecute abortion as murder, then you also have to prosecute every miscarraige as involunary manslaughter (or reckless endangerment at the very least). You can’t pick and choose.

  • elife1975

    Oh, and here’s how I justify abortion: The world is populated enough the way it is. We have enough trouble feeding, clothing, and governing the population as it stands. I believe that life is something you earn, through being part of a community, by contributing, by following the rules. I believe that life isn’t fair, and that good people die for bad reasons every minute of every day. I also believe that life can be beautiful, even if I didn’t sign up for it but rather had it thrust upon me. I believe I wouldn’t know if I was aborted because I wouldn’t care. Ultimately I believe we each control our own bodies and how we treat them, because we’re each alone on this planet. It’s how we come in to it, and it’s how we leave it.

  • pechins

    David your final paragraph demonstrates how you feel about the Catholic Church. It is sad you are so ignorant along with all your sycophants that wrote comments that make no sense what so ever. But then again you probably attended a DC public school for your education. What can I say?

  • mish2

    I wish my Church would stay the heck out of politics. After the child abuse scandals that resulted in SD and LA dioceses paying out ~$1 billion the Church has no moral high ground to take on any issue. Besides, Jesus never spoke of having a structure of any kind in order to worship him and God. By structure I mean physical and societal. Abortion should be an individual’s choice and no one should be able to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy. What that ad doesn’t show are the crack babies born developmentally deformed so that they are doomed to a life of misery. So every anti-abortion advocate should be the first to step up and adopt these children. Let them put their wallets where their mouths are!

  • jp1954

    “People, this is very simple…the Catholic Church is not trying to control your bodies.”That’s a lie. The Catholic Church is clear on this matter: All birth control that is not the “thermal ovulation method” is to be controlled by the state. That’s their position. You can sugar coat it anyway you want (and the Council of Bishops is very good at sweetly propagandizing) but those are the facts.People who respect personal liberty must oppose the Council of Bishops’ anti-democratic agenda.

  • sensible3

    What a ridiculous argument for anti-abortion.

  • ny_view

    Yes, it is real simple. Scientifically, human life does begin at conception. It is a human being at an early stage of development. The question is, at what stage of development do we protect a human’s life?It is arbitrary (and ethically irresponsible) to say that a human at early stages of development is not a human until she/he exits her/his mother’s womb. This point, I am sure, is apparent to women who have been pregnant, their husbands, doctors, and nurses.

  • DCreader2

    Make no mistake: The Repugs are responsible for the huge number of abortions in the US, through misleading campaigns and a heinous and false holier-than-everybody attitude. Most people believe abortion is a bad thing, but that’s really not the issue here. The issue is NOT whether abortion is good or bad, but whether there should be a law against it and what the effect of such a law would be. Does anybody really believe that having a law against abortion mean it will stop happening? We know from experience that that simply is not the case. Scientific American reported that 50% of American women have had or will have an abortion, and that really doesn’t change with the law.The only way to stop the huge number of abortions is to FIND OUT WHY women are making this choice, yet the only effect of passing a law against abortion is to stop people from talking to the government about it. That’s what the Repugs really want: to suppress all the complaints about inadequate education, inadequate childcare, etc., etc. Try taking care of the children who ARE born and then you’ll reduce the number of abortions.You want evidence? Look at Sweden or Switzerland, which have never had the ridiculous “if you vote for this you’ll go to hell” morality scare tactics. The percentages of abortions are tiny in those places compared to those in the US.To those who think the government should “send a message of morality” by making a law against abortion, a) it won’t help, b) it suppresses information we need to stop the problem, and c) it can have awful consequences.I spoke to a woman whose daughter was pregnant in the 60’s. The fetus had died, but her home state had a total ban on abortion if the mother’s life was not in danger, so the law said she still had to carry the dead fetus to term. Fortunately they were able to go to a neighboring state to have the procedure, but with a federal law, there will be no such place to go.Think about the issue: do we need more laws, or more compassion?

  • pw1973

    “Welcome to the Free World. Accept the fact that people have the right of choice. If you cannot accept that fact, you should leave.””Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Leave the rest of us who don’t believe in fairy tales alone.”two more intellectually rigorous arguments. lol

  • elife1975

    I would like to thank JPA954 and Paganplace for the use of the terms “thermal ovulation method” and “premature spooing”, both of which would make for great band names (or unaborted baby names I suppose).

  • HillMan

    You can’t claim to be anti-abortion if you insist on ‘abstinence only’ and limiting access and info on contraceptives, as these idiotic positions actually lead to a lot of abortions.

  • Alyosha1

    elife1975 :Alyosha1 said: The Catholic Church is the largest single provider of social services in the world.elife1975 said: I’m going to have to call you out on that one. Total BS. _______________________________________The statistics back me up on this. Here are the numbers just for the US (and the numbers for what the Church does in other parts of the world dwarf these):Catholic Charities More than 1,735 local Catholic Charities agencies and institutions provided services to 7,854,104 unduplicated individuals in need of help in 2004. Provided Services that Build Strong Communities to 3,618,993 peopleProvided Food Services to 6,360,939 peopleProvided Services that Strengthen Families to 1,093,339 peopleProvided Housing Related Services to 474,999 peopleProvided Other Basic Needs Services to 1,384,101 peopleProvided Disaster Services to 567,334 people (Source:

  • HillMan

    Could someone please tell me where the Bible forbids abortion? And not just a vague ‘thou shalt not kill’. I mean an actual mention of abortion condemning it.All I am aware of are stipulations that if you injure a pregnant woman and she miscarries you must pay her husband a fee for his lost property.That’s not really an ringing condemnation.This is a serious question. If anyone has a serious answer please respond.

  • kert1

    I have not seen the ad but it sounds like it gets the point right. Of course, the author and many other bloggers here miss it.It doesn’t matter that Obama was born before abortion was legal. It happened frequently before it was legal. Ever heard of Canada.Nor does it matter what Obama’s mother actually thought about abortion. The fact is there are thousands of Mothers facing the same decision she was: a failing marriage, an isecure futre financially, a child that may rejected by society (for many reasons), a long road that probably would be tough. Yet she made the right decision and, what do you know, he became president. How many women didn’t make the right decision and ended a life with great potential.When a 3 year old get killed by a drunk driver we get it. We bemoan the actions and dream about what the child may have become. We know that only the skies are the limits. It is the same tragedy in abortion. A life is lost before it ever has a chance to blossom. Who knows what great individuals we have lost because we would rather not have poor babies that have tough lives ahead.As for McVeigh, you definitely got that wrong. I want no part of a society that tries to rid itself of a McVeigh through abortion. You almost certainly never succeed and the cosequences are staggering. The truth is McVeigh probably could have been stopped by people helping him. That is what we need more of, not abortion.

  • pw1973

    wdrudman – i appreciate satire, but not weak arguments. miscarriages would be considered an act of nature, or hey…an act of God, legally speaking.i see your point, but i don’t think it stands up.

  • elife1975

    ALYOSHA1, not bad. Now how many people have been supported by the US Government through welfare, social services, unemployment, etc? I’m attempting to compare a secular to a non secular organization. Oh, and lets not forget the tax breaks given by our government to the church as well. Church does not rule the land. I’d suppose you’d have to subtract from the church all the funds paid out to plaintiffs in molestation cases, and maybe all those murdered in the name of god? That’s an awful lot of negative points against you. Our government may not be perfect, but it sure is a lot more fair and unbiased. Oh, and I don’t believe our government supported the Nazis during the war. The church on the other hand…well…

  • agapn9

    The Abortion rate is influenced by two aspects: an economic one and a legal one – in Africa where it is illegal the abortion rate is a little lower than the US – in the US a rich country where it is legal but where we have a sizable underclass abortion is moderately high – in Eastern europe where the people are poor and it is legal the rate is very high.

  • Responsiblity

    A few things:1. Condoms workAbortion is not the problem. Women should have the right to chose. Ignorance and irresponsibility are the main culprit.

  • Alyosha1

    Hillman:There is no specific condemnation of abortion in the Bible. There are several passages in the prophets and psalms that speak of God knowing and loving people even in the womb. There is also the Didache, the earliest extant Christian writing not included in the New Testament. It was written somewhere between 90 and 120 AD (perhaps before some of the New Testament writings) and it specifically condemns abortion. So it is clear that the Church has opposed abortion right from the very beginning.That being said, just because something isn’t mentioned in the bible doesn’t make it okay. Nuclear weapons weren’t mentioned in the bible, but that doesn’t make them morally legitimate. Except for the strictest kind of biblical literalists, Christians don’t see the bible as an exhaustive legal code. Rather it gives us authoritative guiding principles that need to be interpreted and applied. The overarching biblical prinicples of love and social justice would seem to indicate that we must defend those who cannot speak up for or defend themselves.

  • Pamsm

    M??H2 (sorry, I can’t make it out with the little symbol over it) wrote:”I wish my Church would stay the heck out of politics. After the child abuse scandals that resulted in SD and LA dioceses paying out ~$1 billion the Church has no moral high ground to take on any issue. Besides, Jesus never spoke of having a structure of any kind in order to worship him and God. By structure I mean physical and societal. Abortion should be an individual’s choice and no one should be able to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy. What that ad doesn’t show are the crack babies born developmentally deformed so that they are doomed to a life of misery. So every anti-abortion advocate should be the first to step up and adopt these children. Let them put their wallets where their mouths are!”This is a good post, but it leaves me wondering why it’s still your church?

  • wdrudman

    I am not so sure… taking it to an Orwellian extreme, I foresee Grand Jury investigations to determine whether a miscarraige is an “act of God” or the result of a hostile environment created by the mother through behavioral choices (drugs, drinking, extreme sports, whatever…). Again, I don’t advocate such a position — it would be unworkable — the courts would be clogged. Beyond that, it would be downright mean.But it would be fair and consistent and probably constitutional (meets due process requirements).Personally, I find ethical/moral balance in the distinction between a “potential” life and an “actualized” life. Then again, I’m male, and what I have to say about means squat.

  • Maryb889

    What I find so tiring is the pro-choice advocates who believe they are the only ones with the “moral high ground”…that they are the only ones who are non-judgmental to those who are trying to make the decision about keeping or terminating a pregnancy…that the pro-life advocates only care about stopping abortions and will still stigmatize and leave to the streets the girl who chooses to keep her baby because she dared to get pregnant out of wedlock in the first place.What utter nonsense.It would be lovely to get the hotheaded zealots on BOTH SIDES of the issue to go away and leave the work to those of us who actually care about the pregnant female AND the child she carries.

  • pw1973

    “I foresee Grand Jury investigations to determine whether a miscarraige is an “act of God” or the result of a hostile environment created by the mother through behavioral choices (drugs, drinking, extreme sports, whatever…).”Good point. The only other thing I disagree with is just because your male does not prohibit you from being concenred about something that affects us all (in a sense).

  • kert1

    Hillman,You see the bible is clear that we are made in God’s image and have a soul. No one has the right to take the life of another human, except when that human chooses to kill another human. We are extremely special too God and therefore we must do everything to preserve life.Of course the question of what is human life should be simple but people do make it more complex. The bible hints that God knows is in the womb and from conception. Science also confirms that life is unique from conception and can never be duplicated. These lead us to believe that life starts at conception.Therefore, all human life from conception is sacred and should never be killed because God can’t stand humans to be murdered by one another. This is generally the biblical case against abortion. I’m pretty sure you could have figured this out by yourself but since you seem sincere in the question, I thought I would make it clear.

  • Alyosha1

    elife1975 wrote:If you want to start docking points for hurting people, I’m not sure the US government is going to come out ahead (Iraq, Guantanamo, Panama, Latin America in the 1970’s, Vietnam, Jim Crow, Hiroshima, Slavery …) My point, as I made clear before, is not that the Church is perfect, but that the Church on a daily basis is providing a massive amount of services to people in need. This is to rebut the tired old canard that the Church only cares about people before they are born.Note also that the Church provides these services through freely given donations and service commitments. The US government does it through mandatory taxation punishable with fines and jail time.As for supporting the Nazis, that’s just historically innacurate. I believe the Church could have done more, but the fact that their was a priest block at Auschwitz ought to tell you something.Read up on Maximillian Kolbe and Franz Jaggerstatter.

  • elife1975

    KERT1 said: You see the bible is clear that we are made in God’s image and have a soul. No one has the right to take the life of another human, except when that human chooses to kill another human. I’m sorry, but where in the 10 commandments does it say the above? I didn’t know there were amendments to the commandments (commendments???). Can I covet my neighbors wife if he’s sleeping with mine? Can I steal his fishing boat if he takes my mower? I was not aware of these loopholes. I guess it’s a good thing that the bible is open to interpretation, huh?

  • sperrico

    While disease, birth control, wars,etc., may have delayed cures for cancer and aging by killing babies, it is almost always true that murderers were unwanted by their mothers. I pray that a thug who otherwise would have killed one of my loved ones will never have the opportunity because he or she was aborted.

  • James10

    to jsypal:Abortion IS murder because it is the taking away of an innocent human being. The fact that it is legal is an injustice.==========You got that backwards. The fact that an abortion is legal means it is not murder. Once you bring “law” into the equation, the definition of murder is must require that it is against the law. For the sake of argument let’s say that the law changes that says it is murder. That certainly doesn’t mean that there won’t be any abortions. It doesn’t even mean that there will be a reduction in abortions, or as you would like classified: murder.So what you really have in most cases of abortion is murder for hire. Some woman pays another person to perform an abortion, murder. I can’t see any other rational conclusion for your believe that a murder is being committed other than to convict this woman of pre-meditated murder for hire of an innocent indefensible human being. What other just punishment could there be for that crime other than a minimum of life imprisonment without parole. Some pro-life people do allow for the death penalty, so that might be an alternate.Along those lines, suppose a pregnant woman has a few two many drinks and has a miscarriage? Or perhaps a woman decides to to a little roller skating while she’s pregnant and has a miscarriage? Reckless endangerment? 2nd degree manslaughter? Which is it? Suppose the doctor of a pregnant woman discovers that his patient is no longer pregnant. My god, a crime may have been committed! Certainly, you would want this potential murder reported to the police.If it’s murder, it’s a murder and manslaughter is another possibility. Doctors are required to report potential child abuse to the authorities, it’s only reasonable that they should report what you have decided is a potential murder. That’s the line you want to draw. It’s either murder or it’s not. Now you look up how many women have abortions and figure out how many prisons you’re going to have to build to put all those women in prison for life. Then you can figure out all the women that will have to be investigated for wreckless endangerment and prosecuted for manslaughter. If you’re not willing to toss all those women into prison for life, than you’re not sticking to your principles.

  • mmd4

    Wrudman:Men often excuse themselves from the debate on abortion, claiming it is women’s bodies, women’s choices. See my earlier post. Abortion lets irresponsible men off the hook (or even criminal me who have abused minors). They are not legally the “fathers” of medical waste, so they don’t have to be responsible for what the woman goes through, or responsible for the child that is lost.

  • wdrudman

    KERT1 said: You see the bible is clear that we are made in God’s image and have a soul. The Bible is, in fact, clear on this point. However, what is not clear is the authoritativeness of the Bible……but that is another can of worms altogether.

  • Draesop

    It’s always nice when we can be so definite about the commencement of human life. I am quite sure that every woman who becomes pregnant does not entertain termination as an option. President Obama’s mom is one of millions who make the choice to proceed with pregnancy on a daily basis. Ending human life, at any stage, for any reason is objectionable. I could find room to support those who want to invade a woman’s right to choose if they carried their objection to “killing” right through to the death penalty and unwarranted destruction of human life under any pretense. Some of the posturing by these religious types will remain just that.

  • wdrudman

    mmd4 : I’m not excusing myself from the debate. Nor from personal responsibility. But I do not believe that I (or you, for that matter) have the right to tell another person what to do with their bodies (extend this to the assisted suicide debate, as well). Since only women face this decision (they can consult us till the cows come home, but the final decision is theirs), I agree with those who claim that men should take a back seat in the discussion.

  • leftoflarry

    Again yet failed and flawed logic from the christians. if abortion leads to hope..then tell that to the mother of hitler, stalin, the unabomber adn the million of other “unaborted” men that have caused much pain and misery in the world.

  • notbuyinganyofit

    lol I see. So wouldn’t an ad indicating that if Hitler’s mother HAD obtained an abortion . . .These ads are utterly ridiculous and factually bankrupt.A woman has the right to choose. End of story.Now only if Stalin’s mother, or Jeffrey Dahmer’s, or Ted Bundy’s, or Pol Pot’s, or . . .

  • wolfcastle

    I for one am hoping that Obama legalizes infanticide, since I don’t believe that human life begins until the age of 3. Plus, little kids just bug the heck out of me.

  • bhuang2

    It’s amazing that most of you have never looked at a blastocyst under a microscrope but aren’t allowing your respective ignorance regarding biology to prohibit you from proclaiming inanities along the lines that a little ball of cellular matter is a human being.Sort of reminds me of Sarah Palin not reading Supreme Court cases and then deciding that she could expound on them intelligently. FYI, she couldn’t.

  • elife1975

    Retroactive abortions. We have a lot of work to do.

  • onestring

    It is a disgusting and exploitive adverstisement that neglects to mention the millions of unwanted children starving in the world that result from forbidding contraception, teaching faux abstinence-only education. The children who didn’t ask to be born into poverty, drug addiction, crime, abuse, incest, or whom suffer from crack cocain withdrawls, or being abused, or being the offspring of a rapist or the victim of their grandfather’s/uncle’s urge for incest… THOSE are the TORTURED SOULS THE HYPOCRITES CLAIMING TO BE “PRO-LIFE” WILL HAVE TO ANSWER FOR IN HEAVEN!Sure you’ll force the pregnancy, or cause it by insisting on abstinence-only education and forbidding contraception. Then you’ll demand a cut in the social services that the unwanted child needs to avoid an early death of starvation, sex abuse, human trafficing, crime, drugs, or neglect… all because you want a personal tax break!Republicans force the unwanted child into the world, but insist they fend for themselves once born into the worst possible life situations.THE HYPOCRISY IS DISGUSTING!

  • BTBS1

    I think it was creative. Think about it, if Obama was aborted because his mother was a young 18 year old white woman who got pregnant by an African, and all of Kansas would probably crucified her but yet she decided to keep him. WHAT IF. God ordains every child which it is a child at time of conception. He knew you, he ordained you, he knew you before you were even formed in your mother’s womb (and by that it means that God is the creator of all and he puts you in the family that he chooses) It wasn’t luck, or happen stance. This man was created or this moment. The perfect “AMERICAN”. How more American can he be. A white woman and an African man. Good Ad. But I DO NOT agree with how they are attacking Obama. I am PRO-LIFE but I do not agree with how they attack this man’s faith or his character. SIN IS SIN. So if you agree with abortion doesn’t make you any more of a sinner than the person fornicating with their girlfriend or boyfriend or the man cheating on his taxes right now as I type or the man sitting down watching a porno flick or the priest putting his nasty hands all over that little boy in the 3rd pew in the church. They are all SINS AGAINST GOD. And God sees it ALL AS SIN. You can’t put a level on sin.

  • mmd4

    draesop:There has been a lot of bashing of the Catholic Church on this site, but the last two Popes have been very clear on this. All killing is wrong, except for self-defense. A society is entitled to self-defense in the same way an ndividual is.

  • zains

    The Problem: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…”The Solution: Abort James Madison

  • BTBS1

    One more comment. There is a difference between murder and killing. The original text of the bible stated Thou Shalt Not MURDER. Which is different frm Killing. I can kill you in self defense but murder you for no reason. When you MURDER that unborn fetus that is breaking the commandments because God states it.

  • Responsiblity

    Please do not label Chrisitans. Not all are rabid, nor crazy. I consider myself a Christian and believe in the right to chose. An abortion is difficult enough, why not chose compassion and understanding instead? Regardless not one side of the argument is 100% right. The right to chose responsiblity over recklessness is the one right to do.

  • WandaE1

    I find it interesting that people will go to any lengths to justify abortion, a “legal” medical procedure as being acceptable. This is not a religious issue, but a moral issue. As MLK said, “Just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right.” Think about how many laws were around that were obviously immoral and wrong, for example, not allowing women to vote, not recognizing blacks as human beings with rights, etc. The legalization of abortion falls into the same category. Like it or not, that’s the truth folks. Do your homework. This is a living being who should be protected under the Rights of the Constitution as we are. These poor children cannot speak for themselves, so someone has to do it for them.Our world is so apathetic these days. They don’t care about anyone but themselves. They are selfish and put convenience, careers, fame, etc. over having a child. Others tell people to mind their own business in regards to the whole abortion issue. That’s ridiculous. Think about it – if a guy down the street is molesting someone, would you say something because it’s obviously wrong, or would you be apathetic and ignore it like it’s not an issue? A child is a child, regardless of whether it’s in the womb or outside of it.Another thing, to call abortion “healthcare” is ridiculous. Anyone that I know that has ever had an abortion did not do it for “health” but for their own selfish purposes or as a form of birth control. Ask Whoopie Goldberg, who had a whopping 6 abortions!!! That’s atrocious!!!People, do your homework. Check your facts. This is murder. It doesn’t matter what religion you are. This is a moral issue. You either have morals, or you don’t. Period.

  • brs50

    The era of religious zealots forcing their beliefs on everyone with the cooperation of our government is over. These folks will never stop in their effort to inject themselves into other peoples lives and personal affairs. Thankfully they won’t get any assistance from our new president.

  • newagent99

    i guess obama is also an adervtizement for pre-marital and teen sex.

  • mmd4

    oestring:You need to drop that argument and get to the heart of the abortion debate: You don’t think the human in the womb is a legal “person.” Those arguing that it’s not even a human being have nothing to back that up. Science and the Supreme Court have both concluded human beings exist from conception (not implantation). The only dispute in our country is whether that human being is a “person” as defined by the Court. Ironically, this was the same debate about slaves over a hundred years ago. Blacks were human beings, but not “persons” entitled to legal protections.

  • CCNL

    It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone. (CDC reports as per Google)from the CDC-2006″Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars.”How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Even condoms when used are not full/fool proof. Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???And to use Hitler as a justification for abortion? Give us a break!!! Hitler was Hitler because of the support of the German white folk and their industrial leaders. Hitler filled their needs. If he were not around they would have found another jerk. Should we consider cleansing a whole race by aborting all their children?? Or should we simply enforce following some basic evolution-based rules for humankind such as “Thou Shalt Not Kill” something the Nazis forgot. And the rule we are forgetting, “Protect Life in All Its Stages from Beginning until the End”. Something else the Nazis never learned.

  • markinirvine

    “As for the ad, using Obama’s story to argue against abortion seems disingenuous at best, exploitive at worst. Obama’s parents were married when he was born. There’s no evidence Obama’s mother ever considered an abortion. And as my Dallas Morning News colleague Bruce Tomaso points out, ‘couldn’t you make the same argument about anyone? If Tim McVeigh’s mom had had an abortion, might those 168 people in Oklahoma City still be alive?'”As a person born and raised catholic, I readily agree that the ad in question IS “disingenuous at best, exploitive at worst”. If the Catholic Church were really pro-life, it would abandon its asinine opposition to contraception: the RCC is kind-of like the GOP n the USA: pro-life BEFORE birth, indifferent to life AFTER birth (other than to try to dictate what the person may and may not do with his/her life). If either the RCC or the GOP really cared about “life”, they find a way to support institutionally the quest for quality of life, including the right of the individual to avoid conception. That they don’t disqualifies them, IMHO, from pontificating on many many subjects. I am a recovering Catholic and I approved this message.

  • markinirvine

    correction:”If either the RCC or the GOP really cared about ‘life’, they WOULD find a way to support ….”

  • elife1975

    When the christians stop feeling the need to populate the earth with their ilk, I will become pro life. I think that’s a safe bet.

  • MikeL4

    Abortion kills an unborn child. There is no way you can square that with a loving God. All human life has the potential for great things. By killing that unborn human being, you are killing that hope. By supporting policies, like President Obama did today, that fund the killing of unborn children he joined in that evil. His policy decision will lead to the killing of more unborn children, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

  • Paganplace

    “How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. “Listen, if the idea of an omnipotent and vengeful God watching you with disapproval while you masturbate ain’t enough ‘control’… There ain’t enough control in this Mother’s multiverse.How bout some consciousness and responsibility?

  • zains

    “And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Even condoms when used are not full/fool proof.”Don’t go outside; the sky is falling.

  • mmd4

    Paganplace, and others: What is it about the Catholic CHurch that makes people foam at the mouth? The Church has reiterated its same principles in extensive writings for 2000 years without changing. Is that why people go insane over it? Do you want a church that blows in the breeze and changes its stance on social issues from generation to generation? Then there are plenty of Protestant churches to choose from. If you just have a general problem with the God and Jesus concepts – that’s too bad for you, but why do you still feel the need to attack? Those who have been attacking have also been showing extreme ignorance in the teachings of the Catholic Church, including the reasons behind what it holds to be true. For example, contrary to what Paganplace said, the Catholic Church is against invitro fertilization for the same reasons it is against abortion, fornication and adultery – bacause it believes in the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of pro-creation, as part of the union between humans and God. Its reasons are positive, life-affirming reasons, not the negative reasons so many seem to ascribe to the Church. But it is quicker and easier to attack than learn.

  • Paganplace

    Absolutism and blindness in the face of repressed human sex drives aren’t just *not foolproof,* they are in fact *institutionalized foolishness.*

  • MichelleH

    Bets the heck out of me why anyone is more concerned about protecting fetal rights than they are about actual living children’s rights.Worried a fetus might die? Go down to an inner city school and volunteer your time working with a kid whose parents could care less that he’s alive. Spend 30 minutes tutoring a child who will probably grow up to become a criminal before he’s 15 years old, drop out of school, and still manage to father three kids of his own before he lands in prison for a term. There’s your unwanted fetus…there are plenty of them walking & talking & leading lives a dog shouldn’t have.Self righteous flagpole up the behind right wingers need to get a grip about placentas and put their beliefs to the test. Faith doesn’t amount to an ounce of dog poop if all you do is talk about the value of human life. Go prove you really care. Go find all the fetuses that survived & are living in poverty, on drugs, or beating their own kids. Save them if you want to save anybody.

  • Paganplace

    I mean, mmd, you guys *do* have your better points, but these *issues* you’ve got about sex and control, and what you’re willing to do to others about it, …forget about it. You just *had* your way. Again. Now look at this mess. A time of renewed hope and energy and this is all you can talk about. Not helpful. Not for any of our children.

  • jp1954

    “What is it about the Catholic CHurch that makes people foam at the mouth?”Please read carefully: The Catholic Church is on the forefront of a national movement to place human sexuality under the control of government. Plain and simple totalitarianism.Catholics have a valid and legitimate right to state their moral position and to show moral leadership. That’s great. But they should stay out of the legal/political realm. I will fight vigorously to preserve my personal liberties.

  • jsypal

    James10:I’m absolutely willing to criminalize women and the doctors who perform abortion and your hypotheticals about miscarriage are ludicrious at best.

  • Ken_Davis1

    carolyn912,You seem to think that the issue of abortion rights is a contest or race, hence the “You can’t outlast us…we’re the only ones having a lot of kids and not damaging them with our selfish ideals.” statement. No one is trying to “outlast” you and quite frankly, no one cares how many children you produce. I do hope you are able to provide sufficent care for for your offspring. The only thing people who support abortion rights want is the ability for women to choose an abortion if she determines that one would be best for her.You don’t have to agree with such a decision and I have to yet to see anyone forcing abortions on those who choose another path. BTW, I think that you considering your children as future ATM for your old age is a rather selfish ideal.

  • thebink

    One pill a day ladies, that’s all it takes. The birth control pill is inexpensive through planned parenthood. It’s not absolutely foolproof but pretty darn close. If you’re Catholic and don’t want to get pregnant, take the pill or abstain and follow the dictates of your faith. Nothing works 100% but if women really took control of their bodies, the abortion stats would certainly be cut way back.

  • raschumacher

    One might as well argue in favor of buying lottery tickets because at least a few of them will be winners.

  • dummypants

    One might as well argue in favor of buying lottery tickets because at least a few of them will be winners. except buying lottery tickets has nothing to do with taking responsibility and owning up to the consequences of your actions.and not buying a lottery ticket does not end human life, which everyone acknowledges abortion does. some people just argue that a fetus isnt a “person”, which is kind of a weasely, evasive and legalistic way to look at such a deeply moral issue as when it should be ok to play god with human life other than your own.

  • dummypants

    A comment on the ridiculous article written.FALLACY OF VIVID EXAMPLEMisleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:1. Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because the mere fact that an event is particularly vivid or dramatic does not make the event more likely to occur, especially in the face of significant statistical evidence.ha! you’ve hit at the crux of democrats rhetoric for the past 25 years!in a society of politicized victimization, the lonely sob story now steers public policy affecting hundreds of millions.hell – its called the Lilly Ledbetter bill for crying out loud LOL!!!

  • camera_eye_11

    Anti-abortion folks are pretty lazy; they want the government to pass laws to make abortion legal so they can avoid the responsibility of teaching their children.I know Christians whose children have had children out of wedlock.EDUCATION BEGINS AT HOME!

  • helene307

    Sex is natural, necessary, beautiful, and fun. Everyone should have it, including priests. The Catholic church is whack. Therefore, we should take everything they say with a grain of salt and laugh at them when they speak.

  • jaycebrennan

    This is unbelievably inappropriate. If I were Obama, I’d feel violated. It’s a shame his mother isn’t around to speak out against this.

  • bjuhasz

    I am against abortion, just as I am against being gay, but I have never heard of anyone being forced to have an abortion or to be gay. Why do people always feel that they are so sure what is right that they are willing to impose those beliefs on others. Hitler believed he was right, the Taliban believed they were right, Bush thought he was right, my mother always thought she was right, well my mother was always right but you get the point.I would have a very hard time living with the decision to have an abortion, but I cannot pretend to know what it is like to be a single mother with no money, no job and no hope. We certainly don’t have a shortage of people on earth, if we did I guess I could see the benefit to forcing people who don’t want them, to have babies. Give the people of the world the hope and resouces to bring up their children in a healthy and safe environment, then we can work on convincing everyone that bringing a child into this world is a good idea.The strange thing about alot of people who are against a mother’s right to chose to have an abortion is that many of these same people are for the death penalty and support killing by the military. It would be a bit easier for me to take their preaching if they were consistent in their belief that life is sacred. But in all fairness the Catholic Church is pretty consistent in their stance on killing, but many fundimentalist chuches are not.

  • kogejoe

    Let me get this straight. You want to kill your baby, AND you want the taxpayer to pay for it? So Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion. How does this mean it has to come out of the taxpayer’s pocket?And why should the taxpayer pay for abortions abroad?No, no, NO. Pro-infanticide activists are taking it too far.I’m no Catholic, and I’m not religious. But you don’t have to be religious to think that born or unborn, the creature being sucked into a jar isn’t HUMAN.Roe Vs. Wade or not, an abortion is killing a person. Killing a child in his mother’s body does NOT preserve the fiction that he is “not human” yet.I’ll pay for more sexual and reproductive education. More condoms. More birth control. But after that, so long as Roe Vs. Wade protects infanticide, YOU pay for that child’s dismemberment out of your OWN pockets.I don’t want to pay for no child’s murder.

  • michael_from_sydney

    The life of a human foetus in its mother’s womb is not mine, the father’s, or the mother’s, to take away. Therefore, they don’t have a right to terminate the foetus’ life. However, I am also not a mother, and being a man, never will be, so I cannot possible know or understand what goes through the mind and heart of a woman who, through fear or desperation, chooses to abort her child. My own mother happened to be a teenager still at school when she had me, and I am extremely grateful both to her and to God that she didn’t abort me, despite being urged by her own father to do so. Instead, she chose to carry me to the full term and adopt me out to a kind, loving couple I am proud to call my parents. She was expelled from her school for her trouble, and was never able to return to complete her education. Who knows how her life would have turned out had she covered up here pregancy with an abortion? What I do know is that I have had a life on this Earth, and for that I am grateful, and always remember the sacrifice my natural mother made to ensure that I did.Perhaps people could remember that the mothers making decisions to abort or to carry their child are often young, frightened and perhaps even threatened with dire consequences should they not abort their child. They need our encouragement and support help them to carry their child, not threats against them should they abort it. We need to act proactively to prevent as many women as possible from falling into the predicament of believing they have no choice but to abort. Only once we have done all we can in this regard, as individuals and as a society, can we then start casting accusing fingers. Isn’t this the meaning behind Jesus’ challenge that only “he who has not sinned should cast the first stone”?

  • kogejoe

    By the way, isn’t it funny how when it comes to an abortion it’s “a woman’s choice?”Oh, but if a woman “chooses” to carry her baby to term, well now the FATHER who might not have wanted the baby has to pay for it.Can women really have it both ways, screw the father?Here’s an idea for a law: before the child is born, make the father sign a form that says he wants it. After the child is born, he’ll be bound legally to pay for that child up until he’s 18.If the father doesn’t want to sign the form, you know, the mother can always “choose” to abort the child. If she “chooses” not to, then she’ll have to pay for that too.This way, there is no incentive to “forget” to take your birth control pill and get pregnant with another man’s child. How many men become fathers of unwanted children because the mother “chose” not to abort?Observe “equal rights” more closely.

  • lepidopteryx

    ny_view :The point of the ad is that we do not know how the fetus’ life will turn out based on the economic/social situation of the fetus’ parents. Therefore, the decision to end the life of a human in early development cannot be justified based on the socioeconomic status of his/her parents.

  • lepidopteryx

    Posted on January 22, 2009 21:11 kogejoe : Oh, but if a woman “chooses” to carry her baby to term, well now the FATHER who might not have wanted the baby has to pay for it.Can women really have it both ways, screw the father?Here’s an idea for a law: before the child is born, make the father sign a form that says he wants it. After the child is born, he’ll be bound legally to pay for that child up until he’s 18.If the father doesn’t want to sign the form, you know, the mother can always “choose” to abort the child. If she “chooses” not to, then she’ll have to pay for that too.This way, there is no incentive to “forget” to take your birth control pill and get pregnant with another man’s child. How many men become fathers of unwanted children because the mother “chose” not to abort?Observe “equal rights” more closely.****************************************************************************************************I agree with you there. When I discovered that I was pregnant with my daughter, then decided to have her, I gave her dad the option of being a part of her life, which included financial support, or walking away and never seeing her, and I would ask him for nothing. He decided that he wanted to be a part of her life.

  • michael_from_sydney

    Someone below said: “The strange thing about alot of people who are against a mother’s right to chose to have an abortion is that many of these same people are for the death penalty and support killing by the military. It would be a bit easier for me to take their preaching if they were consistent in their belief that life is sacred. But in all fairness the Catholic Church is pretty consistent in their stance on killing, but many fundimentalist chuches are not.”I notice the same thing, and mainly from Protestants (though we Catholics aren’t impeccable in this regard either). The Catholic Church teaches that deciding to kill another is always wrong. Killing in self-defence is OK, though, to protect a would-be victim of homicide – IF what is intended is the protection of the intended victim rather than the death of the would-be aggressor. To this end, one can only do what absolutely necessary to prevent the victim from being killed. Such killing doesn’t violate the prohibition on deliberately killing another to the extent that it is aimed at protecting the victim rather than incapacitating the offender. What is more, one can only act this way towards an “unjust aggressor” – the would-be aggressor cannot themselves be just an innocent participant in the trajedy, otherwise the person killing in so-called defence is merely choosing to substitute one innocent death for another, and this is NEVER OK as this necessarily entails acting as a judge of others in dealing out death.Applying this to abortion, the unborn child can never be considered an “unjust aggressor” against the mother. Indeed, carrying an unwanted baby full-term doesn’t always imperil the life of the mother. Therefore, the Church teaches that abortion is ALWAYS wrongful killing, and accordingly regards it as a serious sin. (In Catholic teaching, a serious sin committed consciously after adequate time for reflection is a mortal sin.) Moreover, since in an abortion the victim wrongfully killed is the most vulnerable kind of victim imaginable, the Church demands the greatest possible protection against such killings, meanign the greatest possible moral condemnation of them.Having said that, the Church also teaches that all mortal sins can be forgiven by God, through the adminstering of the sacrament of reconciliation, if the sinner is truly pentitent. This would include procuring abortion.

  • gch1946

    I’m curious to know how many of you anti abortion types are going to be willing to adopt the thousands of unwanted children your policies would produce. If a woman does not want her child, then someone will have to take care of that child. Are YOU prepared to do that? Are YOU going to pledge that YOU will adopt hundreds ,, thousands of these unwanted kids?

  • SteveMD21

    This is what I call the church’s attempt to have a trump card, and to hide their own terrible failures and history.All you have to do is read between the lines of the popes pronouncements recently, trying in some perverted way to connect gays to ecology. In effect he is saying that gays are pollution, and they should be eliminated. A final solution? At the House swearing in ceremony on Jan 6, ex Cardinal McCarran referred to the “natural order”. This innocuous statement to many catholics is actually a reference to the church’s calling gay people “inherently disordered”. And buried within our society is the idea that it is ok to beat up ‘crazy’ (inherently disorded) people.So the church talks about life, while they use their pulpit to give license to the murder and bashings of gay people, and the thousands of gay kids who every year commit suicide because of homophobic parents and hassling etc and total social rejection by their peers – the worst possible thing for any youngster in their teens.It is about time that the world recognize that this is the church that combined with Rome back about 400 AD, to give the Muslim world about 15 crusades of mass murder over a 1000 years. It corrupted the Muslims culture, no wonder it was so easy to find people willing to fly planes into buildings. the church’s mass murders gets buried into the language, culture, bedtime childrens stories, poetry etc. And bred another extremist religious branch, Wahabi Islam.And besides all the European wars fought due to religion, the church gave the world the hatred of the Jews, Jesus own people. And a maniac used that hatred as part of his platform to gain total control of his country, and 50 million died in WWII as a result. While the church remained quietly on the sidelines, even helping some nazis to escape by giving them passports to South America after the war.What we really need is a solid line between church and state. They have zero right to drive their religious agenda into our laws, and given their recent history, it is about time we aborted their tax exemption / tax deduction for contributions to them.And let’s hold them responsible for their ‘hate speech’ (in the name of God no less) with full liability when their words inspire others to do their dirty work.A perfect example was the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard in WY just over 10 years ago by two Catholic boys. And the church actually tried to interfere with the Jury proceedings as well.And just recently I saw that the Pope had changed the wording of some prayer that again goes back towards inciting hatred against the Jews for the death of Jesus. Old lessons of ones youth die a hard death, don’t they Il Papa. Please remember that the Pope’s previous job can be described as the ‘guardian of the faith’, meaning guardian of their dogma, keeping it totally pure. This job is really the modern day equivalent of the Inquisition, where anyone, especially priests and scientists like Gallileo who tried to reform the church were tortured and murdered.It is hard to change ones ideas when you are brainwashed by religion as a youth. And growing up as a youth in Nazi Germany doesn’t make for open minds.All the church heirarchy’s goal (- there are lots of good ordinary priests who would do things differently if they weren’t under threat of losing their jobs – one did recently for opposing prop 8 in CA – for doing so )- is about continuing their power over people, an absolutest type power where one man, and his assistants, terrorize people that they must do as they say, or they burn in hell. On the other side of this stick and carrot approach they offer their insurance policy of life after death if you do as they say, and set themselves up as the arbiter of who will be ‘saved’.Or as someone said decades ago, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.A day is coming, as more and more good Catholics realize, where the church will have to go through a total reform process, or face more of what it faces in much of Europe and the Americas. More and more people, especially the youth, are rejecting the church as a hotbed of total hypocrisy, terrorism of the mind, and lies, that as usual has a new group to hate now to replace the Jews, the gays.All it takes is a little bravery and study to realize what a blight on humanity much of this church’s past and even present history has been.

  • michael_from_sydney

    Hi GCH1946: You’re spot on – I’m not prepared to do adopt an unwanted child, so I’m also not entitled to point an accusing finger at mothers who abort their child. I oppose abortion, but also disagree with using any method other than moral persuasion to assert that view.

  • Chops2

    You are either pro life for everyone at all stages of life or you shut up. This means that you must also be anti death penalty and anti war as pointed out below.Some of us have trouble with our own hypocrisy. Myself included.

  • readerny

    This ad campaign is really ridiculous and racist. Where was the Clinton ad when he became President? Or, the Rudy Giuliani ad during the primaries? I would also like to know if the so-called pro-lifers are ready for the ad that says, “So and so sexually abused many children…even though he’s a priest, maybe we would all be better off if his mother had chosen abortion instead of birth”? Are they really ready for the nastiness?

  • larmoecurl

    When the catholic church joins the 21st century- even the 20th century- I might listen. Until then, Any word on how Cardinal Law is doing in the Vatican?

  • pattymon

    it amazes me how many people refer to this ad as “disingenuous” or “intellectually dishonest.” those two adjectives are quite relevant if one were asked to describe the abortion movement itself. Just look up Dr. Bernard Nathanson one of THE founders of NARAL and the whole abortion movement. He wrote “Aborting America” as well as some other books. He gives one an insiders view of the whole abortion industry. quite an eye opener.

  • jennifer8

    Thanks, Catholic Vote, for just assuming that anyone married to a black man (white, black, or otherwise) actively considers an abortion when she becomes pregnant. I mean, who (according to Catholic vote) would want to have a baby with a black man anyway? According to this video, they are all deadbeats, right?Wow. I’m still just stunned. If this is all the anti-choice lobby has left – digging up the old tropes about demonizing the black man – then there’s still hope that these loonies will just fade into Jim Crow obscurity. Seriously.

  • SteveMD21

    And you can bet that the Catholic church, and some other ‘right wing’ types if they got their way on abortion, would next go after birth control – pills, condoms, etc. Whether you are catholic or not. Welcome to theocracy, like Saudi Arabia.I would guess that the only birth control they would allow would be having their perverted priests doing it to the little boys and too young girls in their charge. All the church really is doing is doing is trying to move the conversation off two of their greatest crimes – making sex a forbidden fruit, which resulted in their child sex scandal, and the utter crime of the church hierarchy in hiding these crimes for decades. For as people begin to question their ‘faith’, the church’s power and money will end.And we need to realize that it was not gay priests per se, but priests who were victims of the church’s puritanical view on sex that caused their sex scandal. All this did was arrest the priests normal development, and turn sex into a ‘forbidden fruit’. And ask any good psychologist – ultimately the forbidden fruit is taken and eaten. But when that happens, the victimizer picks up at the mental age where he was denied in the first place. Hence the scandal. And if the church didn’t get away with claiming their absolutist BS about “truth”, those kids would have come forward decades ago.Have any of your kids been acting strangely after church recently? And on a slightly different note, notice how the church sided with the corrupt Bush administration, one of whose many great crimes was to allow those who profess God, but whose god is really named Greed, to rape (sorry ladies, best word I can come up with) the middle class economically, stealing their homes, jobs etc. These people are totally, socially morally corrupt. How many families, educations, hopes and dreams etc will be destroyed no one knows. I even heard of a couple suicides – due to our economic situation.It has little to do with God for the church, and all to do with continuing their power over the mind, and the money and influence that flow from it.

  • michael_from_sydney

    Hello STEVEMD21,I’m a lay Catholic, and attend Mass every Sunday. and have never heard my parish priest ever say it is OK to murder or bash anyone, gay or otherwise. (I do live in Australia – maybe the Church is different in America.) What I do know is that the Church officially teaches that it is never OK to intentionally kill someone. Self-defence, or defence of another person, is OK, but only to the extent that the force used is no more than what is absolutely necessary to defend the life of the would-be victim. If any means short of killing can be used to protect the life of the would-be victim, then killing the would-be aggressor is completely unjustified as far as official Church teaching is concerned. This mean that, in practice, the death penalty can almost never be justified by the Church (something Pope John Paul II made explicit), and neither can hate crimes against those whose lifestyles you disapprove.

  • pattymon

    amazing how people can’t even argue honestly about this video. where exactly did it say “I mean, who (according to Catholic vote) would want to have a baby with a black man anyway? According to this video, they are all deadbeats, right?”with all the talk in here about “fair” and intellectual honesty one would think you could do better than that.

  • jennifer8

    Just calling it like I see it. Being as intellectually honest as possible. The anti-choice is so far gone. It’s laughable.

  • elhaver

    Wake up, people! This is the 21 century!!! Our planet is overpopulated. We have a limited resources of water and food.

  • pvilso24

    Great video ! the truth is shocking indeed.Liberals to their credit have participated in improving services and support for unwed mothers across the country. Indeed, liberal social policies have diminished if not eliminated the major reasons for abortion: poverty, trauma and social rejection.So why do we have a million abortions a year ? 97% of them for convenience ?1 out of 2 abortions is a Black or Hispanic child. Where are our Civil Rights leaders ?9 of 10 Downs babies are aborted despite DS children being the most well-behaved and loving children in the world. Where are the champions of the disabled ?Asian families in the US are now following their cousins in India and China and aborting female children. Where are the feminists ?With genetics, soon gay babies will be targeted for abortion by their inconvenienced parents. Where are the gay leaders ?When will liberals care about the unborn ?

  • pvilso24

    I was once a young liberal feminist guy who supported 100% choice. I too believed the failed mantra: “legal, safe, and rare” until I became a father of a struggling two pound premature baby boy at 25 weeks.Recognizing that young innocent life and seeing him grow into a tall handsome 15-year has been the greatest joy of my life.My liberal friends normally avowedly secular rationalists and lovers of science are wrong… the Catholic Bishops are right… when they say a unique and separate (although dependent) human life form is created at conception. Its simple biology 101. Those who claim otherwise are deniers of truth. How can a liberal defend their opposition to the death penalty for the worst criminals ? but support death for the most innocent ?The Canadian Toronto Globe newspaper ran a multi-page feature on the few woman who have had abortions and speak out proudly about that fact. The writers expressed astonishment that so few people speak about their abortions – they reminded their readers after all its just a medical procedure. The writers asked repeatedly why are women so hesitant to speak ? Of course, we know the answer… at some level.. a potential human life.. a potential daughter, son, artist, genius, President ? indeed a fellow human being has been lost… and lost forever. It is very very tragic.

  • US-conscience

    1. The father is very sick, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the forth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?2. A white man raped a 13-year-od black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion ? In the first case you would have killed Beethoven.In the second case, you would have killed Ethal Waters, the great black gospel singer.

  • pattymon

    I encourage everyone to look up Dr Bernard Nathanson…one of the founders of NARAL and the entire abortion movement. He performed thousands and thousands of abortions but with the birth of the ultrasound he started to have some doubts. He has written “aborting america” and other books as well. he is now stridently pro life.

  • ProLifeActivistBorn59

    It is essential to keep in mind people can have a choice about being good or evil only if they are born. A evil person is not born evil and always lives with the choice to choose goodness at any stage of their life. An unborn child does not have a choice.

  • ProLifeActivistBorn59

    Tim McVeigh was not conceived as an evil child. There is no way for any woman to know that the child she does choose will turn out to be as she wants it to be. She could have the child of her choice, a made to order child that appears only when she is ready to be a mother and still produce a Tim McVeigh.

  • globalone

    Having an abortion is the result of the parents (or parent) failing to accept any responsibility or accountability for their actions. Period.

  • CCNL

    As per BO’s press release yesterday, the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the word “adoption” is not in his vocabulary!!!!What a great healing it would be if BO and his wife adopted a child!!!!

  • illustr8r

    FYI, the editor might want to change the graphic at the top now. Bush is no longer president.

  • hyjanks

    “A pregnant woman’s choices concern more than just her body. There is another living human being with it’s own body, unique DNA and a beating heart and oxygenated blood, who is being killed (without anesthesia).I have no problem with outlawing this choice.”So, Peekrood1, if it is to be outlawed, give us your idea of punishment for the murderer. Oh, excuse me for asking because I know what your answer will be . . . something like this:

  • elife1975

    Reply to PEEKROOD1 who stated: “Slavery advocates used to argue that abolitionist wanted to take away their “right to property” but this is nonsense because another human being is not their property.”. “[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.” Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2 “There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.” Rev. Alexander Campbell “The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

  • elife1975

    “A pregnant woman’s choices concern more than just her body. There is another living human being with it’s own body, unique DNA and a beating heart and oxygenated blood, who is being killed (without anesthesia).

  • globalone

    ELife,You cannot support an argument (or statement) with quotes that you googled on the internet. Unless, of course, you are in grade school. In that case, “he said so” or “my mommy told me” are appropriate defenses.

  • mattnadler

    Contrary to Bruce Tomaso, who the blogger quoted, the ad does not suggest that “Every fetus is precious, because you never know who will grow up to be president.” The message, as I see it, is a rebuttal to the notion that some possible set of undesirable future living conditions – rough childhood, poverty, single mom, broken home etc. – are in themselves sufficient reasons to devalue the potential of a fetus’s life. In other words, the ad counters reasons for saying a fetus is not precious (enough to let live), as opposed to making an argument that every fetus is precious. (Note: It may also be the case that every fetus is precious, and it is certainly true that you never know who will grow up to be president, but neither of those are premises or conclusions of the “argument” of the ad.)Also, where does suggest that President Obama’s mom “might have chosen abortion” (or “could have chosen it legally at the time). It doesn’t.

  • elife1975

    Reply to GLOBALONE: You cannot support an argument (or statement) with quotes that you googled on the internet. Unless, of course, you are in grade school. In that case, “he said so” or “my mommy told me” are appropriate defenses.

  • thebink

    There’s alot of talking around and avoiding the issue of birth control going on here. In this day and age in this country, birth control is readily available and is openly discussed. Any woman that is clueless about birth control is either too young or too dense to have sex. It’s rather insulting to read alot of these comments that are not pushing for personal responsibility on the part of the women involved but are instead deciding whether the church, state whoever, should make these very important decisions for poor clueless little girls. women, take responsibility for yourselves and teach your daughters well.

  • markinirvine

    Annie Kegeel has THE right idea:[anniekegeel wrote: [Although an abortion should never be the ‘solution’ that is first sought, it should always remain a possibility. That is what freedom is all about.[And having the opportunities does not necessarily mean that it happens a lot. The Netherlands (one of the most secularized countries in a world) has legalized abortions over 40 years ago. In the same time, we have the lowest abortion rate in the world![We also have the lowest teen pregnancy-rate in Europe and most definitely much lower than in the US. The reason for this is not because our teens are a-sexual or lack the hormones but simply that ALL teens get sex-education at the age of 11-12 before they become sexually active. Part of the lessons include contraceptions like the condom and birth control pill.[Perhaps a first step would be to inform the teens how to avoid pregnancies. […].]Until the RCC and the GOP get with the contraception/sex education program, their pronouncements on this subject are worse than merely hollow: they are hypocritical.

  • globalone

    ELife,Apologies, as perhaps I wasn’t clear in my comment. Whether your quotes are true or not is irrelevant. They lack any substance when used as the primary support for an argument.That is, if you conclude that the Bible condones slavery (I’m assuming we’re discussing “modern” slavery), then your primary support cannot be a quotation, unless that person is regarded as an “expert” in the matter at hand.

  • elife1975

    GlobaloneAnd also, my mommy told me so.

  • yehadut

    You have totally missed the point of the ad. The ad is rebutting the argument that a child born into a poor or broken home is better off not being born. Obama is a counterexample.

  • lepidopteryx

    thebink :

  • globalone

    “Unplanned pregnancy is not always the result of failure to take precautions – sometimes it happens despite having taken precautions”This is completely true and I don’t think many people would argue the point.It’s odd though. People take responsibility and accountability by using condoms and the like, but when the unexpected occurs (see: pregnancy), they head for the exits and leave responsibility and accountability out in the cold.Why? Because it’s easy and convenient to be responsible when the only requirement is the use of a condom or taking a pill. It requires effort, hard work, and self-sacrifice when the responsibility involves caring for a child or bringing a child to term.

  • grouse1

    Peekrood 1 says it well. All out there with some axe to grind against the Roman Catholic Church or conservatives in general go scream into the night. If you want to act intelligently and discuss then by all means post. This is a serious issue with serious consequences. Millions of babies are aborted becuase of mere convenience. It is a tragedy. And yes all the arguments for such barbaric action by a society are the same ones set forth to defend slavery a century ago. Many stand in line to adopt. So knock off the “you have to pay for the mother to raise the baby” nonsense. Life of mother/rape/incest. Less than 2%. In reality, it is callous, irresponsible people who cause a pregnancy and then want to take the quick and easy way out. Cheap sex, cheap people. Kill the baby. Viability? Some soothe their conscience by talking about trimesters (OK for 1 and 2) not for 3. That is nonsense. Trimesters were invented by the Supreme Ct in Roe. There is no logical demarcation nor medical evaluation based on trimester. It is a made up timeline. At conception, the baby is a human being. There may be some heartfelt and sincere reasons for this debate from pro-choice people, but they have not been set forth. Most give just an “I want to do it and therefore……..” argument. This is a barbaric response to a difficult situation. There are better responses. Our society should take them. The whining about GITMO, or Abu Ghraib or meanness or hate speech is just silly in light of actions to kill our most innocent members of society. And as for the people saying Obama could not be aborted. Guess again. Roe just made it national but abortion was available prior. It was state by state and decided by the people. That is where it should return. We need to elevate this discussion. Idiots, please stay home.

  • dcady_1

    @ CCNLso, let’s assume every abortion had been canceled and the children all grew to voting age. then, all of them voted. not only that, but they’d all have to vote pro-life. you’re telling me that you think they’d all know they were almost aborted and then would vote pro-life? that seems pretty far-fetched.and if the mothers and fathers of all the aborted fetuses would’ve voted for any pro-choice candidate, it makes sense that they would’ve done the same when bush got elected. and if they all did vote against him, and all the pro-life people voted for bush, where were they this year?or, i completely misunderstood the point you were trying to make. who knows…either way, the ad wasn’t original. and it wasn’t good.

  • elife1975

    Reply to Globalone:

  • about1026

    Talk about hypocrites! How is it that when a woman wants a baby she will go to all her prenatal exams, take her prenatal vitamins and do whatever it take to protect the precious life in her. But when a woman is inconvenienced by an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy with the same living, growing baby in her, it is no longer a precious life. Now it’s an unwanted embryo. If you have to kill something to keep it from growing, guess what? IT WAS LIVING! We call that murder, unless of course you don’t want to feel bad about it, than we find ways to justify our selfish desires. Quit your lying and call it what it is “you want the right to kill your baby if you don’t want it”.

  • elife1975

    MAD4: The abortion industry has made $4 BILLION dollars off of the black community.Planned Parenthood is the biggest benefactor, and targets poor, black, urban communities. —————–

  • spidermean2

    Catholicism is just one of the devil’s religion. Just look at how poor catholic countries are. The blame should be pointed at the seat of Satan, the Vatican.Im against abortion but catholicism’s stand against abortion is just for SHOW. It doesn’t really care about the child. It just wants to uplift its image.

  • spidermean2

    Catholics should read the Bible more so they don’t get their directives from the bishops but instead get it from the Bible itself with the help of the Holy Spirit. That would solve the pro-abortion stance very common among ordinary catholics.

  • elife1975

    I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but considering the totally misguided and ill concieved manner in which it’s stated, I have to admit that I somewhat agree with the general essence of Spidey’s last posting.I need to take a shower now.

  • elife1975

    I’m sorry, the second to last…he’s a quick one.

  • tinyjab40

    He is pro-choice at least, and that’s as it should be. Laws and doctrines will not prevent abortions. Relieving poverty and elevating the role of women in the world will do that. We Americans think everything revolves around us. In truth, the rights of women and children are a world-wide issues which will be addressed with justice.

  • WandaE1

    HarrisTheYounger:Talk about “spinning” the issue. As a practicing and proud Catholic, I can tell you that I am sick and tired of media picking on the Catholic church. There are many, many excellent priests out there. I grew up with priests all my life and never, ever experienced the things you hear about on the news. Don’t trash the entire religion because of a few who goofed. These things happen in all religions but unfortunately, the media is biased and doesn’t tell you everything.

  • vegasgirl1

    While those who are passionately opposed to abortion have every right to make their voice heard, here’s a challenge for them: In my home state of Nevada, the only public hospital in Las Vegas has to eliminate the prenatal care program. So, pro-lifers: Are you up to the task to donate to University Medical Center, so pregnant poor women can ensure their unborn babies are healthy?

  • practica1

    “Posted on January 23, 2009 18:11While those who are passionately opposed to abortion have every right to make their voice heard, here’s a challenge for them: In my home state of Nevada, the only public hospital in Las Vegas has to eliminate the prenatal care program. So, pro-lifers: Are you up to the task to donate to University Medical Center, so pregnant poor women can ensure their unborn babies are healthy?____ This argument is a straw man. I do donate from my middle-income resources to programs that serve poor women – about 7% of my after tax dollars go to the needy, and sometimes without benefit of charitable deduction since the needy are often all too-well known to one.And I — and many pro-life democrats and republicans — have opposed the Iraq invasion as an unjust war at the same time we were opposing the death penalty. And believe it or not, we also support HIV programs, rational sex education, and are in favor of gay marriage rights.You pose a false equation. The problem with finding a middle ground is that it requires us to agree to allowing the brutal killing of at least a few vulnerable humans in utero. The goal of fewer unsought and unwanted pregnancies need not also accept abortion when they do occur. There are better ways, and we can change the culture to value all children. Especially those of the poor and downtrodden. Throw them a rope, a dollar, and a sandwich instead of a curette.

  • HillMan

    Kert:That’s simply not a convincing argument. Midwives in Biblical times knew how to induce abortions. Yet the Bible never,not once, mentions the practice, nor condemns it.That would seem to be a glaring oversight, considering the fact that the Bible goes into great detail on many subjects that would seem far less important.Saying that God ‘knows you in the womb’ isn’t the same as saying that God believes abortion is murder, in part because God knows you even before conception, since He knows all ahead of time.Especially since the ONLY reference to abortion is saying that if you cause one you must pay a small fine to the husband (interestingly, th e woman gets nothing) because you destroyed property.I’m still waiting for someone to show me where abortion is denounced in the Bible. Even once.If abortion were murder, and given how common it is and has been through history, you’d think the Bible would have mentioned it pretty specifically.

  • lucy2008

    Abortion isn’t just an issue wrapped up in what is called the “culture wars”. On the most basic level, people differ by religion and by their view of reality. Because of this and because of our democratic republic and the separation of relgions and government, and the freedom for individuals to practice ANY religion, you are not going to get people to agree on this issue. However, we can agree to lower the rate of abortions by making many types of contraceptives easily and CHEAPLY available. Add a good dose of education and you have a recipe to lower the number of abortions dramatically today. Implants for 3 yrs are even available. This would have a dramatic impact today. As time goes on, new and more techy birth control will happen that prevents pregnancies more reliably. Cheap and long acting implants are just a year away.Let’s work for this today.

  • thebink

    Nuva ring-Pill-Mini Pill-Morning After Pill-Condoms-IUD-IUS-Depro-Provera-Diaphram-Sponge-Patch etc. etc. The list goes on and on. Why great numbers of women still accidently get pregnant in this day and age proves either that the days of personal responsibility are pretty much dead or that an awful lot of women are idiots.

  • TomfromNJ1

    To WandaE1As a fellow Catholic, I must take issue with your comment that we are the oldest religion. While i agree that we are older than the ones you mention, the very nature of our religion, teaching, and the Bible shows that the Jewish religion predates us. In fact, if it did not, we would really have no reason to believe in Catholicism since we believe in Jesus fulfilling the words of the prophets.

  • anniekegeel

    Although an abortion should never be the ‘solution’ that is first sought, it should always remain a possibility. That is what freedom is all about.And having the opportunities does not necessarily mean that it happens a lot. The Netherlands (one of the most secularized countries in a world) has legalized abortions over 40 years ago. In the same time, we have the lowest abortion rate in the world!Perhaps a first step would be to inform the teens how to avoid pregnancies. Something Ms. Palin obviously did not know, and many US teens with her.

  • HDiniMFO

    HarrisTheYounger: “Second, the Catholic church is the oldest existing religion in existence at this time.”No. It’s not. Not even close.You’re really playing up to the stereotypes, and it’s hurting the image of your fellow Catholics.

  • PMaranci

    WandaE1 :”Second, the Catholic church is the oldest existing religion in existence at this time.”Not only is it not the oldest religion (remember Judiasm? Buddhism? Hinduism?), it isn’t even the oldest sect of Christianity. A number of Orthodox sects predate it.

  • gccoyote

    To Harristheyounger: Look it up..your religion is not the oldest on the planet. How about Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism?

  • imok2day03

    In 1961, abortion was illegal in the United States and mothers-to-be did not have a choice. We will never know if Ms. Dunham would have chosen life if abortion had been legal in 1961. As a minor, we can only guess what the choice would have been.

  • Farnaz2

    The law granting tax exempt status to religious organizations is very specific in its requirement that they not meddle in political affairs. The RCC has done so with abandon from time immemorial. They are a walking advertisement for revoking the privilege. In our current economic distress, it is reprehensible that these give aways should continue.Tax exemptions for religious institutions should end within one year. During this period, religious institutions should investigate how they will compensate for their anticipated financial loss.

  • grashnak

    “Second, the Catholic church is the oldest existing religion in existence at this time.”Its always amusing to see people display their ignorance. Nicely done.

  • jbuettner2

    Awesome, creative and powerful ad! Way to go Catholicvote! For all the Church-bashers, what’s wrong with the pro-lifers learning the techniques of powerful advertising and messaging? You don’t mind it when it supports your cause, your president, or your political/social/moral views–just don’t let those with opposing views have the ability to voice their opinions as powerfully and forcefully… Whta bunch of bunk.Again, way to go to the pro-life movement and ignore the criticism! You’ve learned that simple and profound truth about life: it is better to be right than popular. I only hope that today’s young people learn that lesson and begin to question the pro-choice status quo propaganda that they have been fed for so long.

  • Jigsaw

    “Give unto Caesar what is do Caesar” – a quote by this Jewish carpenter about 2K yrs ago. As a matter of fact this guy founded a religion that would, at various points in history, cover the world. Furthermore the followers of this religion would inflict some of the most egregious acts of cruelty and brutality in the name of said religion. The irony is that the religion has pushed aside the basic tenets of that carpenter and the future that he envisioned for his father’s children.Folks, there is a great reason why we have and must continue to maintain a separation of church and state within this country. I don’t want your religion (Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, Hara Krishna, and Judaism) deciding how I should live my life when your God (Christians, Jews, Muslims) clearly states in your books that judgment of my life shall be reserved for them and them alone. If your going to throw your book and its tenets in our face then, as that carpenter once said, “take the log out of your own eye first before you go to remove the speck from your neighbor’s!”Where are the thousands of orphanages and social services that you pro-life people have created to support these families and the “choice” that your religion “encouraged” them to make? How many kids or families have you adopted and supported locally and nationally? I don’t see an orphanage attached to every church.You wouldn’t want my spirituality (or lack of a religion) dictating how you live your life, so stop infringing upon mine!!!

  • JPRS

    The day that anti-abortion activists pay as much attention to the living as they do to the unborn — that’s the day that I’ll have some sympathy with the cause.Problem is that social conservatives want the power of choice, without the responsibility that comes with it (e.g. they don’t want to provide the social support that gives that child, and the parent a chance for success). If social conservatives had their way, this issue would be moot. Obama’s mother and father would have been put into prison in 49 states in 1960; and Obama would have been locked out of the educational system which provided him with opportunities. Even his grandparents wouldn’t have been able to help.Rather than focusing on abortion, CatholicVote should look at the reasons why Obama was able to rise to the presidency despite those social obstacles. If Obama had been born in 1960 in almost any other state in the union other than Hawaii his rise to the presidency would not have been possible. Obama rose to the presidency despite some massive obstacles to his achievement put up by social conservatives and other assorted reactionaries. The Catholicvote ad is just another con job by a group affiliating itself with the Catholic Church.

  • choirgirl04

    There is a ridiculous amount of vitrol being spewed at the Church here. Wow.

  • spidermean2

    The problem is this. God destroys the place where evil is practiced. We don’t want the ire of God to fall upon us. So to be fair, those who are for abortion should find another place and build their own country. The first settlers in America (the Puritans) left their lands to build a new GODLY nation. We want to maintain and strengthen what they have built before us.The prophecy states that a big portion of America will be burned because as I’ve said, God destroys evil places.

  • spidermean2

    If the nukes are coming, nobody can stop it. God will not intervene.

  • spidermean2

    On the other hand, the Catholic clergy should concentrate on their flock. A lot of their followers are pro-abortion. Something is wrong with their religion.

  • CCNL

    Reality 101-Barack H. Obama won the presidential election not because of his race or good looks or ability to make a good speech . He won because of the ~70 million “mothers and fathers” of aborted children. The math: Roe vs. Wade was decided in 1973. Since that time (at least until 2003), the CDC recorded and published the number of abortions done in the USA each year. The rate on average was one million abortions per year. That comes to ~35 million abortions and ~70 million voting-age “mothers and fathers” of these aborted children. (The final popular vote count was 69,456,897 for Obama and 59,934,786 for McCain. )And of course they voted for the pro-choice candidate, one Barack H. Obama, the It should read: “The First President Elected by the “Mothers and Fathers” of 35 Million Aborted Children”.The result would have been the same for any pro-choice candidate who won the primary election.

  • thebink

    What this Conservative wants is not to throw pregnant women or Doctors in jail or to adopt others unwanted babies or to pay for other’s abortions. What this conservative wants is for women to represent women well, to be truly responsible for their own acts and their own bodies. If what this Conservative woman wanted actually came about, the numbers of abortions would plummet. That, in my opinion would be the best outcome over all but then what would we have to fight about?

  • peekrood1

    To all Pro-choice commentors-Please spend more time rationally aruging the issues (ie. why unborn human beings do not neccesarily deserve the right to life) and less time criticizing the members of the Pro-life movement, Catholic Church, “conservatives,” etc.As with any issue, there are people on both sides who behave honorably, and those who behave dishonorably. But this has little relavance with the issue at hand.As far as why we Pro-lifers are against a woman (or man) having a legal right to choose abortion, I say this:The reason societies have laws at all is because we have decided that there are some choices (theft, murder, slavery, rape, disobeying traffic laws, etc.) which are so bad for the common good, the welfare of others, and the person making the choice that we outlaw people from making such choices. Pro-lifers contend that the choice to kill (or hire someone to kill) one’s unborn child is one of those bad choices. Why do we insist on “imposing our morality?” Because that’s what laws are: imposed morality. We don’t excuse law-breakers because they simply have a “different morality than us”.Slavery advocates used to argue that abolitionist wanted to take away their “right to property” but this is nonsense because another human being is not their property. The same is true of the right to “do what I want to do with my body.” Aside from the fact that we have other laws that regulate what we are and are not allowed to do with our bodies (drug and alcohol abuse, etc.) when a woman has an abortion, A pregnant woman’s choices concern more than just her body. There is another living human being with it’s own body, unique DNA and a beating heart and oxygenated blood, who is being killed (without anestesia).I have no problem with outlawing this choice.yes we need to change our society to better care for pregnant mothers in crisis pregnancies, yes we need to be compassinoate towards them, take care of them, support them, Amen to all of that but we didn’t wait for racism to go away before we outlawed slavery. Niether should we wait for society to be “ready” to outlaw abortion. We kill 4000 innocent children every day in America. It needs to be illegal, now.

  • iowagranny

    I am pro life Catholic.Why are we blaming Obama? The Congress makes the laws. Why didn’t Bush do what you all want Obama to do?We have to look at the big picture.

  • emcnally6

    It is really alarming how Christian beliefs have been whittled down to the one issue of abortion by some who see themselves as very virtuous and self-righteous. I wish the people who so zealously champion the life of the unborn would champion for the lives of those born into the world who are being denied their basic God given rights in so many places on the planet, e.g., families,love,security, food and education to mention a few. Carl Rove and his followers have exploited people who do not inform themselves about our political system or about what the elected representatives are doing in their jobs. The poster using President Obama to promote their one issue is obscene and only highlights their arrogance and their diregard for the living.

  • eeitreim

    The anti-choice crowd are shameless.

  • JPRS

    peekrood1,In reference to your point, the argument comes down to this:If you have a stake in the decisions involved with a baby coming to viability, then you have a stake in the outcome (i.e. a financial stake in raising the child).If we improve the social safety net in this country, then we can talk more seriously about this issue. Problem is that social conservatives tend to whine about the social safety net (e.g. welfare mothers, right on down the line to the very notion of paying taxes for anything but expenses related to having a military) — they want to impose a choice without sharing in the burdens. There’s another side of the argument too that says that there is no better judge of an intensely personal choice like bringing a child to viability than that of the mother. (e.g. that someone from a distance can’t make a truly objective decision that takes all of the factors associated with bringing a child into this world to account account, because that person is immune from many of the factors associated with the choice). The question of personhood is also tied into the question of abortion. In my view personhood does not occur until the point of viability. A fetus is not a person any more than a fertilized egg, or a sperm is a person. This is one reason that I can see an argument for abortion restrictions in the 3rd trimester, while tending towards giving the mother greater latitude in the 1st and 2nd trimester.

  • peekrood1

    also to JPRSI also agree that we should be willing to share in the burdens, financially and spiritually of pregnant mothers (or anyone) who needs our help. In fact I do donate money and volunteer time to those causes as do many catholic that I know. Catholic social teaching agrees with you completely.

  • alex35332

    Pawns, my family has been in politics since the days pre-dating democracy. Religion is a tool for exploitation. You are pawns of a larger political game that 99% of you are not smart enough to understand.

  • semidouble

    The argument that if BO would have been aborted, he would not be president is ridiculous. If Hitler would have been aborted, 60 million lives could have been saved. All hypothetical nonsense.

  • practica1

    Birth control is all very well until it doesn’t work – and it doesn’t work fairly often across populations. Then the question becomes what to do about the unborn child who shows up unplanned. Some of us who oppose war and the death penalty think killing people to prevent them being poor or unhappy or battered is a phoney choice.Whether 1961 or 2008, an aborted child is a dead one. We shouldn’t have to kill people to solve problems in America.Bevjims1, abortion is legal right up until the moment a young one – fetus in Latin – is fully withdrawn from its mother’s body, not the end of first trimester. Like shooting fish in a barrel.McVeigh might have been a better man had we not been so willing to brutalize our young. That’s a silly bit of sophistry, whichever side plays it.

  • godpere

    The constitution gurantees Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happyness. We forgot Life somewhere in the middle of all this craziness that we callMy one issue with Obama executive order on the Mexico Policy is that we are promoting abortion, not pro-choice by funding not only planned parenthood in the US but similar abortion centers in other countries. This doesn’t make any sense financially. We rooted out a president for wanting to spread freedom around the world but now we support one that funds abortions. As Fr. Pavone on EWTN says when women make the choice to have an abortion, they are neither free nor do they feel like they have a choice.

  • dolph924

    Who really cares what an organization dedicated to misogny, pedophilia and a devout belief that some dude in a pointed cap is infallible has to say? That same church STILL doesn’t approve birth control, even though about 95% of their members ignore them on that nonsense.

  • ProLifeActivistBorn59

    President Obama’s teenage mother became pregnant with him BEFORE she was married to his father. His mother did not want him to be born out of wedlock, hence the hurried marriage.President Obama’s mother became pregnant with him in 1960. Roe vs Wade became law in 1973. There are three possible explanations why President Obama’s mother did not consider abortion: 1. His father wanted him and forbade his mother from aborting him even if she considered it; 2. His mother wanted to have a child by the man she loved; 3. Abortion was illegal. (However it is least likely to have been the reason considering her parents were not happy about her relationship and would have paid for abortion overseas where it was legal.)

  • tonyprzy

    Peekrood1, I really enjoyed reading your comments. I hope many others on this board will read them. Thanks.

  • ProLifeActivistBorn59

    The contraceptive pill came on the market probably in 1960, but the sexual revolution that followed on its heels did not happen until 1967. So, sex outside marriage and abortion was still not the accepted norm when President Obama was conceived.

  • ProLifeActivistBorn59

    Check out the abortion statistics in Western European countries which have liberal social support for their poor. The rate of abortion is inversely proportional to the toughness of the law of the land.

  • US-conscience

    1. The father is very sick, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the forth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?2. A white man raped a 13-year-od black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion ? In the first case you would have killed Beethoven.In the second case, you would have killed Ethal Waters, the great black gospel singer.

  • Anne-Marie

    I like this one: “If Tim McVeigh’s mom had had an abortion, might those 168 people in Oklahoma City still be alive?” – and I add: what about Hitler’s mom ?And a question to US CONSCIENCE who writes: Thank you Mr Obama for undoing all the insane decisions of your predecessor! thank you for all the women’s lives all over the world that you might save.

  • jamesmoylan

    It’s perfectly acceptable to murder criminals via capital punishment.

  • elshibinihussein1

    Just for a change , here is a bit of mathematical magic :

  • lucy2008

    I truly don’t understand posts like this one below:”carolyn912 Author Profile Page:This is so hateful, mean-spirited and confounding let alone irrational. What are we becoming? What happened to “put aside childish things”?

  • lucy2008

    Why can’t we work together on common ground?Wide, easy, cheap access to contraceptives and effective family planning education lowers the numbers of both unwanted pregnancies and abortions.Warring with hatred and irrational talk back and forth on whether abortion should be legal, has not changed a thing in 30 years. Let’s work on lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies. It works and it works now. This is what President Obama is talking about when he talks about common ground.

  • truthseeker1

    Biblical law does not outlaw abortion in either the Old or New Testament.New Testament: Let’s take the New Testament first. It’s simple: Jesus never discusses when human life begins; nor declares abortion a sin. He never even hints at the topic. Of course, Jesus has a great deal to say about helping the poor and weak. However, Pro-Lifers do not show the same fervor on what happens to the fertilized egg after it is born – as they do before it is born (which, of course, is the opposite of Jesus’ teachings.)Old Testament:The OT commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” does not apply to all life. The context of the OT stories clearly shows the Hebrews (with no objections from God) killed animals/insects, killed in self defense/wars, plus executed those who broke their laws. Now the Hebrews were no wimps when applying the death penalty: Even cursing one’s parents, adultery, and breaking the Sabbath could be punishable by death in the laws of the Old Testament.But nowhere is there a law, or commandment explicitly forbidding abortion –anywhere in the Bible. Nowhere is there a record of a person being punished for attempting an abortion (which surely must have happened in a culture that heavily stressed virginity) — anywhere in the Bible!Now there are two references in the Old Testament where a fetus has died. But in neither case was the fetus accorded the status of a human; Nor was there even a “hint” of a view that the fetus might be considered a human. Here are the citations:(1)In Numbers 5:11-13, a pregnant woman was charged with carrying another man’s child. To test her fidelity, she was forced to drink a “bitter water”, which would not harm her if innocent; but would cause a guilty wife great pain and miscarriage– “Her womb will be easily fertilized, but she shall have miscarriages…” Analysis: The woman was condemned to have miscarriages if found guilty of adultery. This shows the Hebrews did not view the fetus as a human yet, and ending its life through a forced miscarriage was not murder.(2) In Exodus 21:22-25, a pregnant woman had a miscarriage AFTER being caught in a fight between her husband and another man. If the woman was hurt, then the penalty was “a life for a life, eye for an eye…”, but if the woman was not hurt there was a fine. Analysis: Again, the “eye for an eye” statute did not apply if the woman miscarried, but was otherwise unharmed. Based on citations such as the Exodus verse above, Jewish rabbinic tradition has concluded that a fetus was not yet human and Jewish women have been allowed abortions. What do Pro-lifers say of the above? They ignore this, of course. In its place, Pro-lifers like to point to other OT verses where God describes “knowing” an individual in the womb. However, close examination will show that these citations are poetic references implying an awareness by God (not the fetus). These verses do not state if God watches over every fertilized egg, or whether a fetus is “human” at all stages. However, Pro-lifers will happily fill in any “missing” gaps with their own interpretations; while ignoring all verses that do not fit. There is a verse — Genesis 2:7– which indicates human life begins with the act of breathing. (God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being.”) Indeed, the Hebrew word for a human is “nephesh”, which means breathing. This is consistent with a scientific view that a fertilized egg does not become human until a later phase – such as when a fetus is viable outside the mother’s womb–or when a human-like brain has begun to form.Summary: Pro-lifers have no real moral authority based on BIBLICAL verses to state life begins at conception! Period!

  • saj_pratt

    The near-oxymoronic phrase “Pro-Life” is one that could only be cooked up by religious wingnuts, intimating that everyone who is in favor of abortion is ‘anti-life’.A human fetus has no ‘life’ of it’s own, but is merely an extension of the mother’s physiology. As well, it has zero cerebral activity in what is a simple, minuscule mass of neurons — a mere one hundredth of that of the common house-fly. All of this is, of course, perfectly obvious to any student who is given a proper education in basic biology/general science.It is a general lack of education in America that has a large segment of the population believing that something called a ‘soul’ is bubbling away in the womb with a fully formed consciousness, purpose, and self-identity.This is a result of the Northern European’s adoption of that infantile platonic view — that humans are composed of separate ‘entities’ called ‘mind, body, and spirit’, rather than seeing the human and all it’s fundamental attributes as a ‘whole’, as the Eastern religions do.To change this basic concept of a mind/body ‘dualism’ into a holistic view is exceedingly hard to do — unless we prepare our youth with proper knowledge and education before such prejudices are formed.The lack of such a holistic knowledge and understanding of human makeup is a very grave problem in the USA because of our terrible educational system and it’s terrifically hideous general curricula, whereas there are, for example, hundreds of million of Chinese students who are not encumbered by such ancient, superstitious nonsense and whose schools strive to embrace the latest scientific knowledge and principles of logical thought.What a shame that is. If the USA ever falls, it will be mainly because we’ve spent centuries teaching our children a lot of nonsensical rubbish.

  • speed123

    “Who knows? That one child could be a girl who grows up to be the first female Pope. Imagine the potential.”David Waters is an ignorant and anti-Catholic S.O.B.Tolerant of all, eh Dave (….except Catholics)

  • dolph924

    The abortion issue in the U.S. has NEVER been about whether abortion should be legal. It is now, and always has been, SOLELY about whether it should be legal for POOR women. Rich women who can afford to travel to Europe can ALL have abortions on demand — now, in the past and in the future. Pretending otherwise is a pure ostrich (head in the sand) stance. To those defending Catholicism here, get used to criticism. When an organization shields pedophiles, insists that its priests be abberant beings who renounce their human sexuality, treats women as lesser beings and pretends that some ex-Nazi Youth clown in a dunce cap knows all, well there is a lot of room for criticism and I’ve read nothing here that refutes ANY of that or that presents the abortion issue as anything other than one of class and wealth.

  • CCNL

    BO should make an address to the nation entitled: “The USA is Out of Control Sexually As Seen by the One Million Abortions/yr and the 19 Million Cases of STDs/yr. How Should We Deal With It???” (The CDC estimates treatment of STDs alone costs $14.7 billion/yr.)

  • lucy2008

    The MMD4 post concerning Planned Parenthood and our new President Obama is filled with hyperbole to say the least.All my family and friends have been donating to Planned Parenthood and using their services. This person just doesn’t know what they are talking about and worse is making things up just to rant. It isn’t helpful. Planned Parenthood is filled with good people who work for low wages but are dedicated to helping women. Their services are top rate and provide a broad set of reproductive choice services. The reason Planned Parenthood is vilified by people like MDD4 is because they offer abortion as one of their services. This organization helps poor women all over the world and here. The organization empowers women so they can make good decisions based on their family needs and economics. These women make their own choices versus people that want to take their choices away. Calling that “Klan” behavior is just looney. Its time to put your childish behavior to the side and move on.

  • jiffy999

    I can’t believe how much ignorance is posted here. No wonder the abortion debate just continues and continues and continues with no end in sight.#1 – “The only way to stop the huge number of abortions is to FIND OUT WHY women are making this choice…” HELLO? We know why: People are having sex. They are not using any “protection” against conceiving or reproducing. They are doing this because they are either (1) ignorant or (2) irresponsible. They didn’t plan on having a baby, so they choose to abort. It’s really that simple (for the most part — I know some abortions are from rape or contraception not working – but not the huge majority). It’s being used as a method of BIRTH CONTROL!!! That’s why!#2 – References to “nonviable bits of protoplasm” or “small clumps of cells.” This is so ignorant. If you knew anything about reproduction and abortion, you’d know that at this very early stage (1) a woman may not even realize she is pregnant and (2) surigical abortions (like suction and D&C) aren’t performed. There has to be a fetus for the abortionist to “see” or feel before he goes in and dismembers it. They’re done at 8, 9 , 10 weeks and beyond. Just google “abortion pictures” then take a look at a few photos and tell me if they simply look like cell clumps or protoplasm!!#3 – Catholic Church dogma, doctrine, sacraments, teachings, and Scripture that is attacked on here. Don’t even know where to begin – there is so much ignorance, misunderstanding, innacurate historical references, and out-of-context cititations on here – it’s pretty sad.God help us.

  • shoun4life

    SAJ_PRATT’s comment begs for a reply, beginning with the description of the term “pro-life” as “near-oxymoronic.” The terms “pro” (“for”) and “life” are hardly contradictory. Beyond that, his/her understanding of unborn human life is woefully inadequate.The fetus is not an “extension of the mother’s physiology.” The fetus is a separate being, with unique DNA. He or she may be a different sex than the mother, and very likely has a different blood type. The human fetus does indeed have a life of his or her own. In fact, by the time the human person is at the fetal stage (eight weeks gestation), all his or her organs are formed and functional, needing only time to grow and specialize. The unborn child at this stage will be about one inch long. A glance at a human embryology textbook will tell you this. Furthermore, almost all our nerve cells (neurons) are generated during our time in the womb. Each neuron has its own function and identity. Did you know that in order for our adult brains to have their full complement of one trillion neurons, we were busy making 2.5 million neurons every minute we were in the womb?Even SAJ_PRATT was once an embryo, before passing through the fetal stage, and then being born an infant. These, like adolescence and adulthood, are just stages of life. There’s no shame in being a fetus.You can call us pro-lifers any name you want, but please don’t be dismissive of the unborn child.

  • michael_from_sydney

    One simple question – when exactly does a “clump of cells” in a woman’s womb become a life which deserves protection and nurturing? For pro-choicers, the answer boils down to “when the woman carrying it says so”. For example, if a woman finds out she is pregnant, and from that moment starts insisting that all the smokers around her take their habit elsewhere, she has clearly decided that the embryo in her womb is a life “deserving protection”, in this case from the dangers of passive smoking. If you believe those smokers should respect her request, then you agree with the mother that the embryo is a “life deserving protection”, and that she has the right to decide so. However, if that same woman finds out she is pregnant and straight away procures an abortion, then she equally clearly believes that the embryo is NOT a “life deserving protection”. If you believe society should respect her decision, then you must believe the embryo’s right to be considered a “life deserving protection” hinges upon the wishes of the woman carrying it in her womb. That this is a core issue for feminists is undeniable, as this belief system asserts that a woman carrying an embryo (and perhaps even foetus) in her womb has an inalienable right to either enshrine it with all the rights of a little human life if she wishes, or alternatively to dispose of it as unwanted property if she wishes.The key here is that the pro-choicers don’t regard an embryo as a human life, distinct from the woman carrying it, until some later moment during gestation. However, I believe that this reduces the definition of a humna life to a merely biological one. If you believe in a human soul, as I do, then a pro-choicer needs to establish exactly when during gestation the embryo acquires a soul, and thus becomes a human life. If they can’t, then they can’t be sure that the embryo they are happy to be destroyed is not, in fact, a human life being killed.

  • michael_from_sydney

    A quick addition to my post below – if you don’t believe human beings have a soul, but rather are merely “clumps of cells” arranged into a complex biological structure, then why should such clumps of mere biological matter be accorded any greater rights than any other “clumps of biological matter”, like apes, or sharks, or jellyfish, or trees, or moss, or lumps of coal in the ground?

  • nosuchthing

    Everybody is asking for a scripture…here is one for you:Luke 17:2 “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”Here is another one:Matt. 18:10 “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.”Another: Matt. 18:14: “Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”

  • nosuchthing

    Here are some more scriptures:Jer. 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” Isaiah 49:1″Listen, O coastlands, to Me, And take heed, you peoples from afar! The LORD has called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name.”Isaiah 49:5: “”And now the LORD says, Who formed Me from the womb [to be] His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, So that Israel is gathered to Him* (For I shall be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, And My God shall be My strength)…”

  • nosuchthing

    Psalm 139:16 “Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When [as yet there were] none of them.”psalm 139:13 “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb.”Job 10:11 “Did you not…clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews?”

  • nosuchthing

    Now these scriptures prove that God created us and knew us before we were even thought of. Then the other scriptures prove that after birth we are precious in God’s sight even to the point of God saying that whoever offends one child or causes one to perish will have to reckon with Him.Exd 21:14 “But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die. Deu 21:9 So you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when you do what is right in the sight of the LORD. The answer is to do right in the sight of the Lord.Exd 23:7 “… do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked.”

  • kattavu

    Mother Theresa had the following to say about abortion:”It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.””America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts — a child — as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters” “Please don’t kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children’s home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!”