who supports right to choose

[Carlene 12]

My point here is that the "pro life" voters were offered a choice, and they voted for the category that reflects their beliefs. That is, even where the mother's life is in danger, there should be no option for an abortion. I think that is terrifying. And I think that you are rationalizing this result with "statistics" and speculation about what these people "really meant." We're just going to have to disagree on that.

I am not rationalizing anything. And properly referenced statistics, by the way, are a perfectly valid argument in any debate. Your arguments, however, always seem to be curiously lacking in that respect. You claim to enjoy debating on the forum, and that's peachy, but you don't get to define the rules.

PS....I am not what is generally considered "pro-life". I do not support abortion on demand, but neither do I lobby against it, nor do I make political choices based on a candidates stand on that issue. I am a woman. I feel for my sisters who are faced with this decision, for it is only by the grace of God that I was never one of them. I am a mother. I feel for the babies whose lives are snuffed out for the sake of mere convenience. Moreover, I am the mother of an adopted child. I know firsthand that the fruits of an unplanned pregnancy can bring immeasurable joy to the life of another woman. I am a Christian, and I hold life sacred from the moment of conception. So you see, it's not as easy as you seem to think, to take a stand, to cast a vote, to make a choice. A little consideration, and a little less nastiness for the "other side" would be nice.

[lisah25 3]

Of course! We are both Christians, just as we are both humans. But we are not the same denomination. Just as humans may be black, white, etc. Their race may be different, but that doesn't make them less human.

That is a great way to put it, IMHO!

[green 6]

Ahem, in The Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, and Penticostalism are indicated to fall under the category of Christianity as are Roman Catholism, the Eastern Orthodox group of churches, etc. It strikes me that anyone who worships Christ is a Christian. For one Christian to claim that another Christian is not a Christian based on a difference in choice of sect strikes me as being arrogant and un-Christlike.:rolleyes

[marjon9 6]

A little consideration, and a little less nastiness for the "other side" would be nice.

I don't agree that I am being "nasty" to anyone. I like to engage in vigorous debate. Sometimes I become, shall we say, enthusiastic. But I don't agree that I am being nasty at all. And I can take it every bit as well as I can dish it out. I don't become personally offended when people disagree with me, even if they call me names.

And as for the substance of what you said, I have tremendous compassion and understanding for the difficulty and challenge in reaching a decision about this highly complex and personal issue. I would never attack anyone for their beliefs. The issue I have, as I have stated again and again, is that the so-called "pro-life" crowd believe they have a right to legislate and use the police power of the state to force me and my family to live by their moral code. That's the part that is intolerable to me. And as long as those people continue to assert that they have the right to force me to live by their values, I consider them to fair game for the strongest possible attacks.

Yes, it is difficult to make these complex and highly personal decisions. That is exactly why there must be a right to choose, and the decision must lie with the individual, not the state.

[marjon9 6]

I am not rationalizing anything. And properly referenced statistics, by the way, are a perfectly valid argument in any debate. Your arguments, however, always seem to be curiously lacking in that respect. You claim to enjoy debating on the forum, and that's peachy, but you don't get to define the rules.

Carlene, this comment is beneath you. Why do you always have to get angry? Where does that come from?

I am obviously not trying to set any "rules." All I am doing is saying that statistics, in this particular case, are irrelevant to the point I am making. In my view, when people decide to say that they would be against the right to choose even if the life of the mother was at stake, this is a significant window into the way they think. In that context, statistics are not relevant. You are far too intelligent to believe that I am somehow trying to set any "rules."

It would be nice to discuss issues sometimes without always needing to hear from you how offensive and inappropriate I am. I don't really mind if you feel like you need to do that, but it is so irrelevant, and such a waste of time.

[anonemouse 1]

And to argue otherwise is anti-intellectual, IMHO.

That's a really nice way to put it, Carlene. I probably wouldn't have been so nice and modest in my word choice. In fact, I came up with a comment last night while I was trying to go to sleep, but I'm biting my tongue because it isn't the nicest wording in the world.

And I am going to speak up with Mark here. I understand that he's not talking about abortion in general, but just this one, single poll. People were asked to choose between thre choices: pro-life, pro-choice, and pro-choice in certain extreme circumstances. To me, he's right. To me, the people that chose "pro-life" don't think that there are ANY circumstances where a woman should be allowed to have an abortion. Not rape, not the bad health of the mother, not the bad health of the fetus. They think that the survival of the fetus takes precedent over everything else. Otherwise, they would have chosen the option of "pro-choice in certain extreme circumstances."

[BJean 16]

Communication by the way of written word is sometimes very difficult. I believe you all are sort of arguing semantics. Just as gadgetlady is arguing about who's a Christian.

We all know that some fundamentalist Christians are very exclusionary. Even to the point that they believe they are the only ones going to heaven. So to argue the point with them is well, pointless. Their beliefs are not "beliefs" to them. Their beliefs are the extension of God's word. They believe that they're not playing God by wanting to outlaw abortion, they believe that they are doing God's work.

They are even more terrifying to me than Muslim terrorists. The possibility of my ever being affected by a Muslim terrorist is very slim. The possibility of fundamentalist Christians making decisions for me is not only a possibility, but it is happening throughout this country as we speak.

The fact that they were able to impeach President Clinton for indescretions in the oval office, and yet fully support our aggression in Iraq (even with the knowledge of how incredibly wrong it was for us to bomb Bagdad that night so long ago and even in spite of the beautiful lives that have been taken away by this administration's actions), should strike fear in all of us.

Abortion rights are just one more step on their political "Christian" agenda. We are fools if we do not speak out. We will be as foolish as the Germans were before WWII who allowed Hitler and his political empire rule Germany and declare war on their neighbors. How did this happen, they asked themselves when the storm troopers marched through their towns. Well it happened one lost freedom and one day at a time.

[BJean 16]

BTW, it is within our rights as members of LBT to state our opinions here without citing "expert" testimony and without posting statistics to back up our opinions. To me the important part of RnR is hearing people's diverse (usually) opinions. If I want to find some "statistical" data to support my opinions, I can go online and probably find some. We all know that people will report and state just about anything and pass it off as fact on the 'net.

That is not to say that I don't enjoy checking out some of the referenced sites and testimony of political movers and shakers that are provided by my fellow RnR posters. But I am a living, breathing, thinking, educated human being. My opinions are my own - I do not have to rationalize them or provide statistical data to support them. By the same token, you are not required to read my posts or give them any weight at all with regard to your own belief system. But to denigrate my comments because I don't provide a bunch of websites for you to read is unfair and kinda snobbish, really.

[green 6]

I must confess that I am entirely slovenly about providing references for my many statements. This is because though I read a great deal of material both on-line and off I never paginate, bookmark or, in the case of newspapers, keep the material. In the case of my own books, I've got 'em jammed into many bookcases usually to the depth of two or three books thick. My crib is in the way of being a papery swamp with a thick crust of dust and cat hair icing every surface. :welldoneclap: :help:

I am always very pleased when folks like Carlene, Laurend, Gadget, and TOM (and where is he these days??) provide the rest of us with reference materials. At the same time, others of us are equally reflective and are capable, I believe, of processing current events and through this do provide valuable contributions to any discussion/debate.:success1:

[gadgetlady 4]

Hi guys. I don't have time to respond to the prolific posts right now, but I would like to respond on behalf of one who voted for option #1 in the poll. The poll wasn't worded very well. My first skim of the poll was to see the choices of "pro-life", "pro-choice", and "pro-life except . . ." I really didn't see much else. I expected, based on the way polls are normally taken on this issue, for the "except . . ." to be "the hard cases" (i.e. rape, hardship, etc.). I truthfully didn't see the 3rd option as ONLY the life of the mother when I voted, primarily because polls are never worded that way so I didn't read it very carefully. My knee-jerk reaction was to vote #1 because of incorrect assumptions I made. Speaking as a long-time pro-lifer and activist, there is no pro-lifer that I have ever met that would agree that abortion should not be allowed to save the physical life of the mother (i.e. she would die if she carried the baby to term).

So -- that being said -- how do I change my vote (or word the poll better)?

[marjon9 6]

Hi guys. I don't have time to respond to the prolific posts right now, but I would like to respond on behalf of one who voted for option #1 in the poll. The poll wasn't worded very well. My first skim of the poll was to see the choices of "pro-life", "pro-choice", and "pro-life except . . ." I really didn't see much else. I expected, based on the way polls are normally taken on this issue, for the "except . . ." to be "the hard cases" (i.e. rape, hardship, etc.). I truthfully didn't see the 3rd option as ONLY the life of the mother when I voted, primarily because polls are never worded that way so I didn't read it very carefully. My knee-jerk reaction was to vote #1 because of incorrect assumptions I made. Speaking as a long-time pro-lifer and activist, there is no pro-lifer that I have ever met that would agree that abortion should not be allowed to save the physical life of the mother (i.e. she would die if she carried the baby to term).

So -- that being said -- how do I change my vote (or word the poll better)?

Even if you did have the thought process you describe, do you suppose that the 11 others all made the identical mistake, notwithstanding the relative clarity of the three options? Do you suppose 396power made the same mistake, notwithstanding that he wrote the poll? If it is really true that you never before even heard of a pro-life advocate who would not allow the option of saving the physical life of the mother, then meet 396power. As the author of the poll I think he knew what he was saying.

And I think the eleven others did as well. The poll is pretty clear.

[gadgetlady 4]

Even if you did have the thought process you describe, do you suppose that the 11 others all made the identical mistake, notwithstanding the relative clarity of the three options? Do you suppose 396power made the same mistake, notwithstanding that he wrote the poll? If it is really true that you never before even heard of a pro-life advocate who would not allow the option of saving the physical life of the mother, then meet 396power. As the author of the poll I think he knew what he was saying.

And I think the eleven others did as well. The poll is pretty clear.

I guess we'll only know if we hear from the others, but I wouldn't doubt that many, if not all, made the same assumptions I did. I'm not confident that 396 understands the nuances of abortion polling. I think he meant the poll to have the options of pro-life, pro-choice, and abortion should be limited except for some cases -- as he had heard it worded in many national polls -- and he added a clarification of ONE of the "extreme" cases. His clarification may not have been exclusive in his mind and in the minds of others. The poll should actually have had some other options as well, and I think you would see many mor subtle nuances: "I believe abortion should be legal through all 9 months of pregnancy", "I believe abortion should only be allowed in the first trimester", etc.

Anyway, it would make sense to hear from the others before you judge. After all, you made a judgment about my vote and that judgment was incorrect.

[marjon9 6]

I guess we'll only know if we hear from the others, but I wouldn't doubt that many, if not all, made the same assumptions I did. I'm not confident that 396 understands the nuances of abortion polling. I think he meant the poll to have the options of pro-life, pro-choice, and abortion should be limited except for some cases -- as he had heard it worded in many national polls -- and he added a clarification of ONE of the "extreme" cases. His clarification may not have been exclusive in his mind and in the minds of others. The poll should actually have had some other options as well, and I think you would see many mor subtle nuances: "I believe abortion should be legal through all 9 months of pregnancy", "I believe abortion should only be allowed in the first trimester", etc.

Anyway, it would make sense to hear from the others before you judge. After all, you made a judgment about my vote and that judgment was incorrect.

Here is something that might help move the discussion forward. It is an article by a pro-life advocate who argues that there should be no exception for the life of the mother. (Does this help explain why some of us find the pro-life argument so terrifying? Can you imagine if you guys become the majority and start making laws?).

So, even if nothing else happens today, you will be introduced to your first pro-life advocate who maintains the view that the dividing embryo should be saved but the mother should die. (That may not be a choice often in the real world, but if it were, this guy would vote for the mother's death). You can find the article here:

Why the Life of the Mother is Not a Valid Exception for Abortion - Vision Forum Ministries

(You see Carlene, sometimes I do my research).

I've pasted the text below:

Why the Life of the Mother is Not a Valid Exception for Abortion

by Douglas W. Phillips, Esq., December 16, 2002

Susie, a mother of five children, finds herself and her three-year-old year son Johnny adrift at sea in a tiny one-person raft. They are hundreds of miles away from the nearest boat or landmark. The prospects look grim for both mother and child. On board is a container of Water and food. One problem is that there is no realistic means for acquiring additional food at sea and even less for collecting rainwater. If the food and water on board are carefully rationed, Susie will have enough provisions on board for one person to barely survive two weeks at sea, which is the time she has estimated it will take for the little raft to follow the currents to a latitude and longitude frequented by shipping vessels, one of which, she is sure, will rescue her. This is her one hope for survival, but she must last two weeks at sea. Although she might hope that a rescue ship will arrive before that time, the appearance of such would be nothing short of a miracle.

Susie now confronts the biggest dilemma of her life. Based on the information before her, only one person can survive the sea voyage. As things stand now, both mother and child seem destined to die of dehydration and hunger. The only realistic hope for any survival would be for one of the two to die, leaving the other with the supplies.

What to do? Susie is aware of only three options. Option One: She could simply pray, trust God and accept the very real possibility that both she and her son will die; Option Two: She could sacrifice her own life and leave her son with the necessary provisions for his own survival; or, Option Three: She could kill her son, leaving her with the necessary food and water to make it to safety. This last option is the most ominous, but the one Susie feels obligated to carefully consider.

Susie ponders the situation. It is true that Johnny is her son, but it is also true that he poses a very real threat to her survival. Mother and child are both yoked in an uncomfortable environment for a long period of time, mother and child are both living off the same limited food source, and mother and child both find themselves in a life-threatening situation. With every bite of food or drink of water that he takes, Johnny increases the possibility that Susie will not survive at sea. The fact that Johnny does not intend her harm is not at issue. The bottom line is that little Johnny is a threat to her own life. To kill her son, Susie reasons, is really an act of self-defense. After all, isn’t it better for one of them to live, than for both to die? Furthermore, there are four other children at home who will suffer greatly if they lose their mother. The loss of a brother is tragic, but the loss of mother can harm many lives by depriving other children of love and affection. Susie’s life should be saved because it is clearly the more valuable of the two. As she considers these points, Susie notices a school of sharks circling her boat. Her decision made, Susie waits until the middle of night at which time she kisses her son, effortlessly lifts his sleeping body from the raft, and then throws him into the water where he quietly slips below the waves and is ripped to pieces and consumed by the man-eating sharks.

Thanking God that she did not have to watch her son’s death or hear his screams, Susie wipes the tears from her eyes and resolves to move on. She knows that her decision was a valid choice and an act of self-protection. Further, she is comforted by the fact that Johnny is probably better off to have died a quick death with the sharks than to be put through the agony of long-term starvation and dehydration. All things considered, her actions were merciful. Susie manages to survive the next two weeks, is rescued, and returns home to serve as the mother of four healthy children.

What shall we think of Susie? Shall we bless a mother who kills her own child to save herself? Are we proud of such a woman? Shall we sing of her virtues? Perhaps we should just chalk-up her decision to feed her son to the sharks as “an unfortunate, but necessary evil.” After all, she was just acting in self-defense. It was either the mother or the child. One would live and the other would die. Who could blame Mama for wanting to fight for her life, even if it meant that her son would be torn to pieces in the darkness of night?

In point of fact, this woman’s behavior is utterly despicable. Susie is a criminal. Her behavior is indefensible. To murder another is wrong, but for a mother to murder her own child as an act of self-preservation is a crime of unspeakable ignominy.

Why do we shudder at reports of ancient pagan parents who threw their children into the flames or put them to the knife to appease a heathen god? We shudder and cringe because the parent-child relationship is the most sacred, the most inviolable, and the most foundational to life and civilization. Upon this relationship rests the eternal destiny of every true Believer. It is the relationship of the heavenly Father to the Son, and it is the relationship that every Christian has as a child of God. It is our one hope.

It is because of this truth that we embrace the spirit of R.M.S. Titanic commander E.J. Smith who proclaimed “women and children first” as the great ship went to its demise. A man worth his salt will not try to evaluate the value of his life in comparison to that of his wife or children. He will simply die for his loved ones. He will play the part of the man and willingly sacrifice his life for those dependent on him. He will give up his seat on the lifeboat for them; he will face death and make any sacrifice for those that God has placed under his protection. Just as every man should know that it is his duty to die for his wife and children, every wife should know that that it is her duty to sacrifice for the child she has nurtured in her womb. Sacrifice is implicit to the Christian definition of mother.

This brings us to the question at bar. Is there any substantive difference between Susie’s actions and that of the mother who orders an abortion “to preserve her own life?” Count on the fact that the blade of the abortionist is every bit as bloody when applied to the skull and chest and legs of an unborn little boy or girl as the teeth of the sharks were to young Johnny. Does this description offend you? Infanticide is offensive.

“But we must have abortion when the life of the mother is in jeopardy,” some will argue. “Is it fair to deprive a husband and family of a mother? After all, such an abortion is simply an act of self-defense by the mother against the child. And what if the child’s chance of survival is rather slim in comparison with the likelihood that the mother will die if the baby is brought to term? Surely, abortion is reasonable in such circumstances.” For thousands of years, man has found ways to rationalize murder, but for those who call upon the name of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, there is but one standard for resolving this and all ethical questions: Holy Scripture. The Bible gives no authority for a parent to ever take the life of an unborn child.

Scripture does give three valid bases for taking the life of another, none of which can even remotely be construed as a justification for “abortion for the life of the mother.” Man may take another’s life in the case of just warfare; man may take another’s life when acting on behalf of the civil magistrate to execute a person guilty of a capital crime; or man may take another’s life as an act of self-defense, or in defense of others where there is a significant and immediate threat to life best remedied with a lethal response.

To conclude, mothers should never kill their babies. There are no exceptions. The Bible condemns abortion and offers no exceptions to this rule. Abortion is not even biblically permissible in so-called “life of the mother” cases. As with all ethical decisions, our approach to the question of “abortion for the life of the mother” must be dictated by Scripture alone. We are not to look to situation ethics, the advice of the medical community, personal opinion, or even “common sense” to help us make life-and-death decisions concerning our unborn children. Nor may a Christian look to their emotions, to human traditions, to majority consensus, to their personal experience, or to a private revelation from God as the basis for their decision-making. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof and for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly equipped unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This is the only source of wisdom for our ethical decisions.

Even within the Christian community, however, some would argue that it is better to kill one unborn baby, than to risk depriving a family with living children of their mother. Others would argue that it is a legitimate act of self-defense for a mother to kill her baby where medical experts conclude that there is a high probability that the little baby could threaten the life of the mother. Still others might argue that where a baby will probably not make it to term anyway, but the continuing growth of the baby threatens the health of the mother, that it makes common sense to allow the mother to take the life of the child. Each of these arguments is rooted in a form of unbiblical situation ethics and a rejection of the sufficiency of Scripture. In Scripture, we learn that God alone is the author of life and that He alone can grant jurisdiction to take life. Further, we learn that the unborn baby is a life with an eternal soul; that man does not have the right to judge or evaluate the quality of a person’s life, and thus, the right to determine which babies have a right to life; that “expert” medical predictions about the future are based on the thinking of finite men and are often wrong; that God alone knows the future because He planned it and superintends every micro detail; and that He alone holds the key to life including the power to heal. Finally, we learn that taking innocent life is universally condemned as a crime punishable by death. Concerning abortion as a form of self-defense, the Bible teaches that such killing is only valid as an act of self-defense against a wrongful party. Wrong requires intent. Mothers may not kill their babies as an act of self-defense because an unborn child intends the mother no harm and lacks the mental capacity to pose a willing threat to a mother. Furthermore, child-sacrifice as a means of self-preservation is universally condemned in Scripture as one of the most wicked crimes imaginable. On the other hand, self-sacrifice is the “greatest form of love” and the essence of arenthood, even as it is the essence of true Christian leadership. Because there is no biblical distinction between the value of life in utero and ex utero, mothers and fathers must always be willing and ready to sacrifice their lives for their children, born or unborn.

In light of the above, Christians must join together to uphold God’s Law and stand in defense of the unborn. Killing a baby in the womb is unconscionable under any circumstances. To embrace anything but a “no exception” policy in opposition to abortion is to condone infanticide. Historically and biblically, the greatest judgments have been reserved for those nations which embrace perversion and child sacrifice. (Both are rampant within our nation.) Political leaders who profess to be Christian, but who promote the right of any individual to perform abortions (child sacrifice) for any reason whatsoever, are party to the promotion of the slaughter of the innocent and will be judged. Such men and women will be judged even before heathen leaders, because “judgment begins first in the house of the Lord.” Consequently, before pointing out the speck in the political eyes of unbelieving politicians, we must first remove the enormous log of compromise from the collective eyes of our own evangelical community.

The unwillingness of Christians to take a principled “no exception” stance on abortion, as well as their habitual fear of holding professing Christian leaders accountable to the biblical no-exception standard, is a likely cause of our ineffectiveness to turn back abortion in America. God often blesses nations because of the obedience of the elect. The elect of God is the remnant of faithful believers who occupy and advance the kingdom of God in their land. (Had there been but ten in the days of Abraham, Sodom would have been spared.) Because of this, it is the failure of the remnant, even more than the evil of the heathen majority, which determines the future of a nation. The remnant must be faithful to God’s standards. If past is prologue, and history does repeat itself, we can and should expect that, absent repentance, such compromise within the Church will possibly become the heavenly impetus for our collapse as a nation.

Rescue the perishing.

Care for the dying.

[lisah25 3]

Interesting link Mark.

There are of course some issues I have with it, as I think you did. One being that often, if the mother dies, the child will too. So it's not quite the "either/or" presented. Even in the liferaft situation, "Susie" dying to allow her son the food and Water doesn't mean he will live.

[gadgetlady 4]

Interesting article, Mark, but not representative of the movement. I think it's a bit similar to the information I posted about radical feminists advocating women who have never had an abortion get one so they can experience it. The mention of such a point of view caused you to create quite a ruckus, if I recall correctly, because you felt it was inappropriate of me to bring fringe elements like that into the argument. Discussions of it went on, and on, and on, and on, and on, as you beat me over the head saying the point of view didn't exist, and when I demonstrated that it did, you switched your tactic to beat me over the head saying I should never bring up a thing. I have no intentions of doing the same to you. I have never heard such a position and I don't believe it is representative of pro-lifers as a whole.