Probably because with rape and incest the female didn't choose to have sex. Is it any less wrong? To people...maybe, maybe not. To God...no.

The topic of discussion is how to REDUCE the number of abortions.

Now if you want to expand the discussion to "all or nothing," I suppose we could do that too.

ML, the Nazi's execution of Jews was not as simple as various individuals acting upon their free will. There were a lot of other variables and many of the people who were closely involved in the actual treatment of these people (not just killing them but how they held them in concentration camps etc.) did NOT believe they were doing the right thing at all but were in circumstances where they felt they had no other choice (they did but that's a whole 'nother argument).

As for changes in the numbers of abortions pre and post 1973, this is unknown. There is no way to obtain accurate numbers of illegal or out-of-country abortions.

And FH, I am a 150% supporter of preventing pregnancy in the first place as the best means to reduce abortions. The first step to this is education. Until we can raise kids who can speak openly with their parents about all aspects of sexual relations and activities, this is a serious shortcoming both in your country and mine. I realize there is sex ed in most schools now but it needs to be stepped up and parents themselves need to get more involved. I first learned about sex at age 7 in the school playground from an 8 year old girl. My DS first asked me about sex at 5. Nowadays kids are even younger when they get their first piece of information. I know now that what I was told at 7 was not fully accurate and there was absolutely nothing about STDs, abortion, pregnancy, birth control or anything - just what the act actually was. This was hardly educational. But for some kids, this is all they get.

Tabby - you may as well hold your breath. Conservative Christians don't want to talk about preventing pregnancy. They only talk about abstinence. because discussing birth control would be giving permission.

If it's simply a medical procedure then why doesn't a parent have to authorize their daughter's abortion? An minor child can't get a tatoo or bring an asprin to school without parental consent but she can kill an unborn child...something is really wrong with that.

I'm probably not going to hit every point FH because I find I'm repeating myself a lot here.

It is not so simple as individuals deciding for themselves what is right and wrong (though I agree that does happen). We live in a global society now. People come from different religous and cultural backgrounds and generally carry their beliefs from their FOO. It is always difficult to fully comprehend another culture when you haven't lived it yourself. Think about what you would think if someone started preaching Islam to you as the truth - because they believe it's the truth. You have your faith and are strong in it. They do too. It's not so much moral relativism - they aren't making stuff up that is convenient to them. It is truly what they believe.

And this is why it will never be completely eliminated. But take drinking and driving as a parallel (since it has already been brought up). Aside from legislation, there are many groups that campaign to the public directly against drinking and driving (e.g. MADD). In my area, they sponsor cab rides home from bars. They pay for advertising to continually educate the public. They work so hard that most people now consider drinking and driving to be an immoral and unethical activity. To be accused of being a "drunk driver" is probably worse than many of the racial slurs of the past (at least around here). If it weren't for their efforts, do you think the few spot checks the police are able to set up would make much of a dent in the problem? Probably not.

See my response to Mel - I discussed my feelings on this there.

Cultural and religious differences make abortion permissable even under this. This is my point.

Same as above. If someone doesn't recognize this, then they don't.

I like this argument as part of an educational campaign. Sexual activity can be compared to a loaded gun in a variety of its facets, not just pregnancy. This is something young people really need to know before they engage in this risky activity.

But that misses the point, Tabby. Even if some Germans were forced to kill Jews against their will [a complete fabrication, btw] the belief of the German government was that killing Jews was a perfectly legitimate endeavor.

You stated that one's BELIEFS were a justification for anything. Therefore, using your logic, the Germans were justified in killing the Jews.

You tried to dance around that question, but that is the logical conclusion to your assertion.

So, let me try putting this another way so it is crystal clear:


I don't think you really believe this, Tabby. You fully expect to be treated with moral absolutes by society. I have never met a moral relativist who really believed it, rather, they just have not thought it through. When it came to their own treatment, FROM OTHERS, they always INSISTED on moral absolutes. And more importantly, killing is killing regardless of whether one "believes" it or not.

For example, if you discovered your bank account had been plundered by your banker, would you then say:

But if the banker doesn't believe that stealing is wrong, he isn't choosing to steal. If people don't have this belief, whether or not it's the truth, they are not choosing to steal but choosing to not be poor.

Do you see the problem with this logic, Tabby? All your banker has to do is tell you he "believes" stealing is aok in order for you to accept the theft of your money. So unless you admit you would accept his logic then you don't truly believe what you are saying here.

But I betcha do expect moral absolutes from your BANKER when it comes to the treatment of your money and would not accept the theft of your money.

You are asserting that one's "belief" is truth and will justify anything [except the belief that there are moral absolutes, of course] but do you see how ludicrous that philosophy is in practice?

Your argument that more sex ed is the answer makes no sense either. The problem is not lack of education, but a lack of MORALS, lack of moral leadership and a lack of good judgment that comes with being a teenager. All the education in the world will not overcome the lack of judgment and maturity in a 13 year old girl. Nor will it overcome the teachings of adults who teach these naive kids that wrong is right.

Some reasons for that are perhaps the parent may be the *cause* of the daughter's pregnancy, or informing the parent may place the child in danger. Just because someone contributed DNA to a person doesn't necessarily make them a wise and loving caregiver. In situations of a pregnant young girl, the potential for harm is much greater than when a child simply needs parental permission for an aspirin.

I am not advocating all-or-nothing thinking. Others mentioned and advocated for all-or-nothing thinking, and I simply had a question regarding where they stood in the case of rape or incest.

How can abortions be reduced when we have ADULTS misleading kids into believing that abortion is nothing more significant than removing a WART?

How can abortions be reduced when we have ADULTS, who should know better, taking young girls off to get abortions? Girls who cannot even legally get their ears pierced? Girls who do not even possess the maturity and judgment to drink alcohol?

And who will pay the price if the girl grows up and her left brain kicks in and she learns right from wrong? Who will pay that price when she sees the blood on her hands and realizes she was conned into commiting a heinous act?

I do not differentiate whatsoever between rape and incest cases and all else. The children of rape and incest are just as valuable as other children. Nor do I believe that being raped gives one a license to kill. Rape does not justify murder.

IMHO, this blood is shared by all that support/enable abortion...even with just a vote. I truly believe that they will indeed pay the price for harming TWO of God's children.

With incest there's a whole bunch of sick stuff going on there that has to be addressed and I don't think it happens that often compared to other types of pregnancies. As for placing the a pregnant teen in danger...that's a big what if and other than total nut jobs I don't hear of parents who willfully hurt their child over a pregnancy. It could happen, but disappointment is more common.


I agree.


Potential is the word here. I still don't see headlines all over the place that parents are beating the crap out of their pregnant daughters or worse. You said that parents don't necessarily make wise caregivers yet they are intrusted with everything else concerning their child.

I respect that. It is self-consistent. Thanks for replying.

It happens. Surely putting the young girl in harm's way is at least as bad as endangering the unborn?

I agree with you Jayne.

The argument concerning rape and incest is often used by pro-abortionists but it is an infinitessimilly small number compared to other reasons.

I don't believe in an exception being made in those cases.

RU486 perhaps?

Meaning you consider the morning after pill a valid form of birth control?

I wouldn't agree with that.

BK, the "issue" is NOT, under the current discussion, what I personally think is a "valid form of birth control."

The issue is a discussion of HOW could the current rates of abortions be reduced.

If you, or others, want to argue for NO abortion being legal, then whether I personally agree with that position or not (based upon MY belief in the sanctity of all life) is irrelevant to the "question at hand."

If you want to "allow" abortion proponents to "frame the question" as an "all or nothing" approach, then the election of Barack Obama should be enough to make it clear that HE is in favor of, and will support, ALL abortion for any reason including letting a baby who survived an abortion attempt die. HE will likely be appointing Supreme Court Justices who will continue the wanton slaughter of Roe v. Wade through "trumping" the Constitutional right to LIFE with the concept of "privacy" for any decision that a woman might make regarding her unborn child (or according to Obama, her born child that she "meant to" abort).

In addition, the election of Obama SHOULD make it clear that even some people who claim to be "Christians" do NOT believe that life is sacred and that children are gifts from God, complete with their own souls and individual lives.

I "did what I could" with respect to the abortion loving Obama and voted against him and for a pro-life candidate. Like it or not, the Government "sets the rules" and we cannot "take the laws into our own hands" and use one "wrong" to justify another "wrong," such as bombing clinics or killing abortionists. We CAN protest, we can get arrested for daring to protest, but we are to "submit ourselves to the governing authorities" (Rom. 13:1) and not return "evil for evil."

Others (believers, anyway) will have to answer to God for their SUPPORT of abortion when they had a chance to "speak out" (Vote for the government that they will "submit" to).

They chose secular instead of God. Just like the Israelites did on many occasions and received a "consequence" of their choice to turn FROM God TO secular society and perceived "needs".

Given the society that we live in. Given that we are to "submit" to the govenment (as Christians) while standing FOR God, even though I think all abortion is wrong just as I consider all premeditated murder to be wrong, I am willing to "make exceptions" for the "reasons" or "excuses" that pro-abortion folks always want to toss out as "stumbling blocks."

Can I "save" everyone from premeditated murder as I'd like to be able to do? No. I can stop myself and I can SPEAK OUT to others, such as family, that all murder is wrong and prohibited by God as an act of greed or revenge (not war or self defense or accident). But I CANNOT stop others from doing what THEY are going to do regardless of my opinion or belief.

But I CAN push to eliminate "abortion on demand" as a "birth control measure," which is what the vast majority of all abortions are performed for. I CAN advocate for both "abstinence" AND for birth control measures to be used AT THE TIME OF SEX.

RU486 IS an "abortion method." However, for those who are doing to "do it anyway," AT LEAST it stops a pregnancy BEFORE a woman even knows she is pregnant and I would "include" that regimine in the "arsenal" of "at the time of sex" birthcontrol, to be used after EVERY sexual encounter if they do NOT believe in the sanctity of life.

The "issue" will never be an easy one. But at the present time I WOULD trade the very reduced numbers of abortions that would result from removing "on demand" for the current level of MILLIONS of aborted babies merely because the woman "wants an abortion" as a means of birth control.

In the sense of "do what you can to save as many as you can," I am NOT responsible for the choices of those who would "abort anyway," regardless of any argument or law to the contrary.

Agreed...so long as they do not conflict with God's law. If a governing authority...such as Germany (WWII) made it mandatory to serve in a war where their objective was horrible..one should NOT submit to the governing authority.

It is evident from all I have read and learned that the "governing authority" as stated in Romans 13:1 was really a way for Christians to fly under the Roman radar at the time.

I applaud anyone that stands up to a government that murders innocents. I think Paul Hill was a hero that is now receiving the blessing of heaven.

If we submitted ourselves to the governing authorities FH we would still be under England's rule. We are to fight the unjust even here at home. Sometimes that will require doing so with more than votes or prayer.