Agree completely.

To be fair to those who oppose abortion on religious grounds, though, it's not just that they believe it's a sin. They believe it is the killing of another human, an innocent human. They believe it is murder. The belief that murder is wrong is certainly not limited to religious people -- it's pretty much a given in most societies.

So, from the perspective of those who oppose abortion on religious grounds, it's not a matter of "I think it's a sin, so everyone else should as well." Rather, it's a matter of a moral imperative to prevent the killing of innocent humans and to object when the culture (in their view) condones the murder of those unable to protect or speak for themselves.

Obviously, not everyone agrees with that view. But if the question is going to be asked "Why don't they understand that not everyone thinks abortion is a sin and stop telling us what to do?," then there needs to be some understanding that to a person who opposes abortion on religious grounds, that question makes no more sense than asking "Why don't they understand that not everyone thinks genocide is a sin?"

Regarding the issue of adoption and how women deal with it, I talked with a woman who was in college in the 70's. She said she had friends who got pregnant and gave the baby up for adoption and others who had abortion. She said the emotional damage was FAR worse for the women who gave the baby up for adoption. Now, this can't be the only reason to have abortion be legal, but the health and welfare of the mother needs to be extrapolated out more than if she will or will not die in childbirth. I am all for adoption, but I think it's a unicorns pooping rainbows answer to the abortion problem. Would I counsel a woman to consider it, yes. But once the decision is made, then the world needs to get off her back.

And for the record, I also support euthanasia because there are times when death is the better choice. At both ends of the life spectrum. If you believe in the life of the soul, reincarnation and/or heaven, you have to accept that the soul goes on, even in cases of abortion and euthanasia.

And since the science can never be settled about what constitutes life, then it will only boil down to belief. I BELIEVE it's life at viability. But until my belief can be proven through science, then it has to be kept to personal choice.

And, by the way, that doesn't mean killing the abortionist.
But the biggest things that an anti-choice person can do is work to prevent unwanted pregnancy and improve the life of the child who is born from an unwanted pregnancy.

That's a lot harder than having a rally once a year or throwing money at an elected, but it might actually accomplish a reduction in abortion, the only issue they purport to care about.

From an OB/GYN who was practicing before Roe v. Wade. Interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/he...essa.html?_r=0

DaffyKD

And no where did I suggest it does, I believe, would the vast majority of those who oppose choice on religious grounds.*


* After posting my earlier post, I realized I should have been more precise in my terminology and said "those who oppose choice on religious grounds." There are those who oppose abortion on religious grounds but who do not think the government should get involved in the decision.

Amen and amen!

That's quite a generalization of what "they" believe and how "they" act. Many abortion protesters have been to jail and court for doing pretty much that very thing, while municipalities and states have enacted laws to prevent protests at abortion clinics. And is it really reason to say "well, they don't really beleve that" that when "they" see laws they believe legalize murder, they respond by trying to change those laws?

The point is that we have a 40+ history of people on both sides of this issue (and quite a few others) misunderstanding, mischaracterizing, caricaturing, trivializing or dismissing the opinions and beliefs of those with whom they disagree. And that is one reason why after 40+ years, this is still such a divisive issue in this country.

Just to be clear and in case it matters, I am pro-choice. I think abortion raises serious moral and ethical issues, but I think those issues should be resolved by the woman involved (and the father when appropriate), not by the government or by the community. I find myself agreeing with Hillary Clinton that abortons should be safe, legal and rare.

But there's an old rule of thumb that real dialogue between people who disagree on an issue can never happen until those people can each say to the other "You believe that _______," and state the beliefs of the other in such a way that the other can say "Yes, that's what I believe. You understand me."

I definitely wasn't accusing you of such short-sighted thinking. Just pointing out the hypocrisy that exists in the name of religion among, certainly not all religious people, but enough that it merits pointing out.

And for argument's sake, on the right there is the lunatic who thinks blowing up abortion clinics is the answer. There is no corollary on the left. While I have heard things that implied such, I've never heard anyone ever be PRO abortion. And I've got some pretty hard left friends :) Unfortunately, trying to find middle ground uses that end of the right to balance off the left: legal safe and rare. And in my opinion, the result is far more conservative than the average, middle of the road American feels. For instance, if access to abortion was legal, safe and plentiful, but only allowed in the first or second trimester (with exceptions for emergencies), I think the majority of Americans could get on board. But that's not what is seen as compromise in America today. I'd even be ok with mandatory counseling about options, as long as they weren't harassment in disguise.

But back to the original subject, are Ohioans getting fired up over this issue? Or are they just accepting this?

Gotcha. :D

I don't think that the majority of women who are getting abortions are using it as a form of birth control, but I'd be interested to see some actual statistics.

I would agree that the adoption culture in our country is all kinds of screwed up. There are plenty of children that want/need to be adopted, and there are plenty of great potential parents who are turned down for ridiculous reasons. However, I wouldn't agree (if this is what you were implying) that all women who wish to get an abortion should carry their child to term and give their baby up for adoption. This isn't the solution. If you get pregnant and you truly don't want to have a baby, then 9 months of pregnancy, hours of labor, and having to give your child away doesn't sound too appealing. It's not as though you're deciding between a chicken sandwich or a salad for lunch. This is a life-changing decision that will affect you for the rest of your life. And giving up 9 months of your life just to give your baby away isn't what everyone is willing to do. And in my opinion, they shouldn't have to.

Exactly. Ironically, a lot of times, the same people who are arguing against abortion, are the same ones who are arguing against any form of birth control.

Fair enough. I think that the majority of the people that I hear this argument from are arguing it based on religious reasons. And in most cases, the religious argument applies to the gay rights/marriage debate, which I mentioned in my original statement. I know that's not the topic of this thread, so I'll refrain from delving into that topic.

Exactly.

A little bit off topic, but at my school, there was a protest on campus comparing abortion to the Holocaust and other genocides. They called abortion "The genocide that happens everyday in America." It was fairly disturbing.

I'm an Ohio resident as well... other than military service after high school, I have been my entire life.

I'm not okay with this tripe in any way.

The biggest problem with the transfer agreements is that previous Ohio law requires a transfer agreement to be in place... and now the law is written such that public hospitals aren't allowed to enter into those agreements. It's a backhanded way to shut down clinics... particularly when the profound majority of private hospitals have Catholic affiliations. For a college frame of reference this is like a degree plan that requires a course to graduate, but the school doesn't actually offer the course.

To start, technically abortion is birth control... it controls birth... albeit after conception. Second, the research summarily dismisses the "abortion as birth control" argument pretty regularly... there isn't some weird glut of lady folk running around using abortions as their primary form of birth control... urban legend/anti-choice stereotype. Finally, the existence of infertile couples isn't cause to force women with unwanted pregnancy to be brood mares.

Fact remains that abortion is about ending a pregnancy... it's not about avoiding parenthood (as obviously adoption is always an option). When pro-life folks champion adoption as the go-to option, I can't help but think they really just don't get it... they still think it's acceptable to force/coerce a woman to endure the very real risks to her life and health for the better part of a year because they think it's the "right thing to do."

I see your point, though I think the Newtown shootings aren't at all an apt analogy. The people protecting children there were people already in the school who had at least some relationship to the children there. Other than law enforcement, there weren't random strangers running in to throw themselves in front of the bullets. Your earlier reference to Auschwitz (which I recognize was a reference to comparisons that those opposed t choice might make rather than your own comparison) might have been a closer analogy, though I'm well aware that comparisons to the Holocaust can be unnecessarily inflammatory and Godwin the discussion in no time flat.

But don't you see how refusing to accept what people say their beliefs are can come across as disrespectful and dismissive at best and arrogant and condescending at worst, especially if you throw the "exaggerated rhetoric" in there, or make judgments about what actions someone else's beliefs should require them to take? Telling someone they don't really believe what they say they believe is usually a pretty effective dialogue killer. I would certainly wonder why I should bother talking with someone who seems to think they know more about what I believe than I do.

I'm not saying to uncritically accept whatever someone says. But I think we get a lot further if we give people the basic respect of taking them at their word about their beliefs and experiences. If we start there, then we can explore (and challenge) the implications of those beliefs, if not the beliefs themselves -- as long as we're also willing to be on the receiving end of exploration and challenges.

The problem with your argument, MC, is that on one side is Live and Let Live (if you don't want to have an abortion, don't), and one that is my side is right and needs to make decisions on behalf of everyone, even if half the world disagrees because what they want to allow is murder. Regardless of if it's religious, political, social or whatever, one is telling the other how to behave and that is offensive to the part who thinks personal responsibility is more important. I don't see middle ground here. Well, I DO see middle ground, but it's not middle ground the other side will accept as compromise.

There may not be middle ground, or the middle ground might be somewhere no one expects it to be.

But that's really not the point of my argument. The point of my argument is that regardless of whether middle ground is found, nothing good or productive comes from people on either side (of any issue) misunderstanding, mischaracterizing, caricaturing, trivializing or dismissing as not genuine the opinions and beliefs of those with whom they disagree. That just widens the divide and is a guarantee that middle ground can't be found. It's a sure recipe for polarization. If people on opposite sides make a genuine and respectful effort to understand where those with whom they disagree are coming from, then if they continue to disagree, at least it's an honest, and hopefully, respectful disagreement.

Hmmm- I need to stop by this site more often – always an interesting conversation going on.


DubaiSis – I have a couple of questions, and I want to let you know before I ask them that I do consider myself prolife, but I completely agree with MysticCat’s point that these type of discussions go nowhere if we don’t understand the point of view of those with whom we disagree or think we disagree, so I want to assure you that these are not meant to sound snarky, but come from a desire to understand your perspective. If my attempts to paraphrase your points mischaracterize them, please correct me.

1) You stated that you didn’t want “religious people” or more specifically Christians cramming their beliefs down your throat. How do you think they are doing this – in other words, do you believe they are bypassing the usual political process that exists in order to affect change when we (meaning citizens) feel change is necessary or do you mean they are doing this in some other way and if so, how do you mean this? I have to say I was a little concerned with the comment that if this is what they want to do, they should start their own Christian country. It sounds a little like the response of conservatives to Vietnam War protestors in the 60”s: America- love it or leave it. Is this what you meant or am I misreading you?


2) You pointed out that there have been cases of pro-lifers or anti-abortionists bombing abortion clinics and there is no corollary among pro-choice groups. Are you arguing that when they (meaning those who would consider themselves liberal) feel strongly about an issue – when they consider it vital to maintaining or bringing about a just society that protects those whom they perceive to be helpless, those who are on the “left” so to speak in their political viewpoints, have never reacted extremely or with violence?

3) Finally, you indicated that you felt there was enough hypocrisy among “religious people” to be noted. This probably will sound snarky, I don’t, again, mean it that way, but I can’t think of another way to word it – how does one quantify the amount of hypocrisy in the roughly 27 million people in this country who identify religion as a high priority for them and determine there is enough of it to be noted? How would one draw the conclusion or find any evidence to support the conclusion that they are more hypocritical than those who claim no religious beliefs? What is the number or percentage of hypocrites within that group necessary to be worth noting? Since we all have moments of hypocrisy, how would you determine whether these people are consistently hypocritical or have moments of hypocrisy common to every human?

I realize these read like long essay questions. I apologize for that, and I understand if you don’t want to take the time necessary to answer all of them or any of them, but as I said, I’ve found that this site is, among other things, a great place to come and read different opinions and find out why people see things the way they do and how they’ve come to their conclusions and beliefs.