I wasn't always pro-life.
In the early '90's, I was a card-carrying, sign-waving, Clinton-campaigning pro-choicer. I held to the notion that a fetus couldn't fully be life, since it was dependent entirely on another for its existence. And I believed the notion that abortion is unfortunate, but it wasn't any of the government's business.
I wish I could point you to a specific point on my journey where my views shifted entirely. There was no dramatic morning where I woke up suddenly pro-life. My thoughts on the subject have meandered down many roads before winding up where they are today. I've been asked to tell you why I believe the way I do.
I will, and I invite you to come to this conversation with respect and courtesy. There's too much yelling over this issue, on both sides, making it impossible to hear each other. I understand (because I've been there) that pro-choicers stand their position firmly because they believe they're defending the fundamental value of choice.
And I understand (because I'm there now) that pro-lifers stand their position firmly because they believe they're defending the fundamental value of life.
Volumes and volumes have been written on the subject, and smarter people than I have debated it for years. Time and space will not allow for me to address every imaginable facet of this debate.
But I will address the two issues that ultimately were responsible for changing my heart on the subject of abortion: that of a embryo/fetus as life, and the issue of choice.
The embryo and fetus as life
I'm no scientiest, but I pay enough attention to know that defining life is no black-and-white matter. For many years, I made myself comfortable with the definition of life as that which could be sustained independently from another human.
It was a tidy argument, I thought, until I began to expand it outward. If only independently sustainable life really "counted" then what would we do with the Alzheimer's patient who would wander off into danger without constant supervision? Or the mentally disabled child who could not eat without being fed by someone else? Or the young mother dependent on dialysis for survival?
By my old definition, I was discrediting the "alive-ness" of people who needed help to exist. The slope was so terribly slippery that I found myself flailing as I slipped down it. If I could no longer consider dependence on another a pre-requisite for being human, then where would I draw the line? Science seemed to be making things more ambiguous, but my heart craved a more concrete answer. After reading and looking investigating and comparing, I realized I had to admit to myself there was only one un-ambiguous start of life that satisfied me:
Conception.
But there was that slippery slope again. Where did this put that important issue of a woman's right to choose?
The issue of choice
Choice is a beautiful thing. It is a fundamental part of what makes us humans. I passionately defend a woman's right to choose a career or schooling or housing or any number of life avenues. I defend her choice to decide whether to have sex, and with whom, and how often, and whether or not to use birth control.
But absolute, unhindered choice is not a guaranteed human right. Think about it: civil society already tells us that we cannot "choose" to abuse a child or "choose" to steal a car. There are legal consequences to those actions, because "choosing" to burglarize a home infringes on the basic liberties of the person who lives there.
The precedent is set. When our right to choose bumps up against the right of another to exist peacefully, our choice is blocked by civilized law.
And it is with this in mind that I realized, as I came to terms with the validity of the human-ness of a embryo and fetus, that I had to accept there was a moral point at which a "woman's right to choose" ended. Her right to decide what to do with her body bumps up against the right of that baby's right to exist.
The only place I could arrive after looking at the medical/legal/social/civil/constitutional issues was that something had to give. A woman's right to choose an abortion cannot logically co-exist with a embryo/fetus' right to be born.
Simply put, life trumps choice.
And no, to answer the question that inevitably arises when this issue is brought up, I don't think the pro-life movement is perfect (then again, is any movement?). I cannot be responsible for everything every pro-lifer does, but I can be responsible for what goes on in my own heart and head. I recognize that crisis pregnancies are very real and very serious, and pro-lifers who dismiss the anguish of such situations are unkind and naive. We, as pro-lifers, should be at the forefront of helping women in very practical ways to navigate unplanned and crisis pregnancies. Many pro-lifers, to their credit, already do this. More should.
Perhaps, if both sides of this debate stopped shouting, we could focus better on the people at the heart of the issues: babies and pregnant women. Both deserve our respect and our best efforts to help them live with dignity.
* * * * * * * *
For some other pro-life blogs and websites written by women, see the following:
Shannon is a Contributing Editor (Mommy and Family) at BlogHer, and she also blogs at Rocks In My Dryer and Bloggy Giveaways.
Comments
Great post, Shannon. "The
By: livingingrace Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoGreat post, Shannon.
"The only place I could arrive after looking at the medical/legal/social/civil/constitutional issues was that something had to give. A woman's right to choose an abortion cannot logically co-exist with a embryo/fetus' right to be born.
Simply put, life trumps choice."
I've never been on "both" sides, but I love the way you explain it.
My 47 Cents
By: Suzanne Reisman Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoI've written extensively about this topic (most recently, Why We Vote With Our Uteruses"), so I'll make this as short as I can and then I'm done.
First, thanks for acknowledging that "when life begins is not black-and-white. (The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has some very thoughtful writing on this issue as well.) Thus, because we cannot agree "when life begins," I find it problematic to adopt the strictest interpretation and force everyone to live by one judgment.
Every decision a woman makes about reproduction has consequences. For every abortion story that I hear that is full of regret and guilt, I can repeat several that are full of relief and lack guilt. For every adoption story that ends with happy families, there are ones that end in tragedy and personal torment. For every story of a woman whose life was fulfilled by keeping the baby she didn't plan for, there's a story of despair and unsatisfied lives.
That's the point: if you don't have to live with the consequences, you should not be able to make the decision, especially since we do not agree (and never will) "when life begins." (If you don't believe life begins at conception, you are not bumping up against the right of something to exist.) Some would say that possible pregnancy is a consequence of sex that women agree to when they consent to have sex. However, human sexuality is a human urge. No birth control method is ever 100%, and if we argue that women who do not want to be pregnant should not have sex if they are not prepared to live with the consequences, then some women will forever be denied their human rights as sexual beings. This is not just about single women. This also means that marriages could be ruined because a wife cannot have sex because she risks being pregnant.
Making abortion illegal has never in history stopped abortion; it only kills women. (Women desperate to control their lives and their futures will always seek abortions, and many will die or have their health damaged through illegal procedures. This is a black-and-white fact.) To truly respect and value life, we have to trust people to make the best decisions for themselves based on their beliefs, situations, and circumstances.
Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants
Thanks, Suzanne, for sharing your thoughts.
By: rocksinmydryer Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoMy aim in writing this post wasn't necessarily to change the mind of a pro-choicer, but to explain that many pro-lifers have put more thought into their stance than they're given credit for.
I can accept that you and I probably aren't going agree on this issue of when life begins. But since we CAN agree that it's a tricky question WITHOUT black-and-white answers, I still submit that we should err on the side of giving life a chance.
As to your point, "Making abortion illegal has never in history stopped abortion." You are right, of course. Making child abuse and car theft illegal hasn't stopped child abuse or car theft either. And yet we acknowledge that those things are morally reprehensible and we stand our ground anyway. Would we ever just *give up* and say "Spousal abuse is going to happen anyway, so let's just make it legal." Of course not.
To address your last statement, "To truly respect and value life, we have to trust people to make the best decisions for themselves based on their beliefs, situations, and circumstances." We trusted Nazi Germany to "make the best decisions for themselves" and life was profoundly disregarded in ways we can barely comprehend. For the first half of US history, we trusted southern states to "make the best decisions for themselves" and black people were shamefully subjected to slavery and and less-than-human status. Humanity doesn't always have a great track record of "trusting people" to make life-respecting choices.
I do thank you for weighing on this issue so thoroughly.
Shannon @ Rocks In My Dryer
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy and Family
rocksinmydryer.typepad.com
bloggygiveaways.com
48 cents...
By: Suzanne Reisman Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoAs the grandchild of Holocaust survivors who lost their entire families, I really cannot emphasize how insulting it is to compare abortion to genocide. Voluntary termination of a pregnancy and the specific, targeted removal of entire groups of people from the face of the earth will never, ever be comparable.
Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants
Abortion is the specific,
By: Dana J. Tuszke Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoAbortion is the specific, targeted removal of the embryo/fetus from the uterus and/or face of the earth as well. There is no lesser evil. Both situations end lives. 48,000,000 abortions have been performed from 1973 to 2007. An entire group of people specifically targeted and removed from existence.
It's insulting that you consider one act worse than the other.
I beg to differ
By: LivingN Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoIt is indeed a form of genocide. 90% of the pregnancies, in which the unborn child is diagnosed with Down Syndrome, ends in abortion. That is, albeit, "voluntary", a "specific targeted removal of an entire group of people from the face of the earth".
It's a matter of where your perspective lies.
By: rocksinmydryer Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoSuzanne, in no way did I intend to insult you or your family--what Holocaust victims endured is one of the greatest tragedies in human history. I do understand how from your perspective (you clearly stated that you do not believe life begins at conception), it would not be a fair comparison.
To me--from my perspective--it IS a fair comparison. I believe, to the very core of my heart and soul, that life begins at conception. I believe that an embryo is as human, and valuable, as you or I sitting here at our computers. And while I know you don't share that view, it's the view I'm coming from, so I hope you can see why drawing a comparison to the Holocaust in no way minimizes the Holocausts, but in fact demonstrates how tragic the abortion is to me and my fellow pro-lifers.
Shannon @ Rocks In My Dryer
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy and Family
rocksinmydryer.typepad.com
bloggygiveaways.com
Holocaust and Abortion
By: Chris Arsenault Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoSuzanne,
I'm truly sorry for the loss you suffered in your family from that time - clearly too many stood by and did not stop the destruction when it was happening. Too many refused to see what was plain and visible right in front of them, or the wished to rationalize it away.
Could it be possible the same thing might be happening on this issue?
Your arguments and your insulted feelings only work if you are assuming the unborn aren't human beings.
That's the question at the heart of this - what are the unborn?
If the unborn are human beings, then the worldwide death of approximately 50 million abortions (per year!) is a kind of Holocaust, yet the unborn weren't killed by strangers, but by the permission of their own parents.
Science informs us when human life begins - at conception. Without that substance, the actual flesh and blood, then personhood would be non-existent. If you detach personhood from the flesh, then your own arguments about personal control of your own body become non-sensical. So existence is fundamental to our total being. The unborn are members of the human community.
As for your indignation regarding the Holocaust and your ancestors - what makes us valuable as human beings is something that is unique that all of us possess - our humanity.
It doesn't change because of our size, our level of development, our environment, or whether we're dependent upon others.
If not for our humanness, our ability to recognize that wonderful innate and unique expression that makes up each as individuals that are joined to a greater family, if not for defending that humanness whereever it is found, there would be no basis for calling the Holocaust (upon a people) or abortion (on an individual level) a tragedy.
Our very humanity is what makes both you and I valuable to each other.
Is God a murderer?
By: Catherine Morgan Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoChris, I have to respectfully disagree with you. The Holocaust is much worse than a "tragedy" - and not comparable in any way to an abortion.
You said...
You are taking huge liberties with the "scientific"definition of human. "Human" life begins after birth. Yes, life (in the form of cell division) exists in an embryo, but that is embryonic life. It is not a human being, it can not be a "member of your community".
The most simple way I can explain this, is with the saying...What came first? The chicken or the egg? The egg is life, and if given time could become a chicken. But the egg is clearly not a chicken. And, if you eat an egg, a chicken is not suffering.
You may want every embryo to become a human being, but even God doesn't allow every embryo to become of human being. Is God a murderer? I don't think so. But in your definition, he is. I lost several pregnancies before I was blessed with my two children. I was told I lost these babies because of "God's will" - Does that make God a murderer?
I understand you have strong feelings about when life begins, and I respect your beliefs. But, scientific fact proves that an embryo is not yet a human being. So, comparing the suffering of a Holocaust victim, to an aborted embryo, is absurd and disrespectful.
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog
That's the question isn't it - is it a human being?
By: Chris Arsenault Posted: 13 weeks 2 days agoYou're stating that embyronic life is not a fully integrated human being - but if it's not, what is it? It's not enough to handwave it because these things are being killed.
Please provide scientific evidence to inform me that the embryo is not a human being (one who exists), because all the embyology texts (never mind all the IVF that's taking place) ensure everyone around me that it's a real live flesh and blood human being.
Are the bloody graphic violent photos which depict aborted babies true?
When parents choose a name for their unborn, then call that unborn child by that name, should they be treated for psychological problems?
What you and so many others have done Catherine, is detached the "person" from the "flesh and blood body" in your argument - that's a metaphysical argument, not scientific.
When you detach personhood from a body (which is what you are claiming) then strange things happen because you can't rightly claim that your mother was pregnant with you prior to your birth - in fact, how can you claim your birth as your own?
When did your right to "choose" accrue to you - at what point in time did you become a "person" deserving protection? Is there some sort of "personhood" superglue that happens because you changed location and moved 6-8 inches down a birth canal?
You're advocating a well known argument called self-body dualism, which is fallacious because it focuses on a person as a functionality instead of substance - but if degree of development makes us more human, then newborns should be able to be killed, because they are less developed than teens or adults. I don't think you'd agree with that.
If size, degree of development, location/environment and degree of dependency doesn't change our moral accountability to each other for the born, why should those same concerns be rejected for the unborn? There is no valid reason to do so.
The first act of a genocide is to "depersonalize" a people group. What is removed is the "personhood" - precisely what you and many others are doing to the unborn.
When the Jews were depersonalized it made it possible to commit atrocities against them without an uproar or retribution.
The flesh and blood of 50 million human beings - "embryonic life" to you has been spilled and every day more and more people see their unborn through ultrasounds and embryoscopies and other instruments.
If we don't defend the smallest, weakest members of the human community, what hope do we have to defend against anything else? Why does your life matter?
Were my babies murdered?
By: Catherine Morgan Posted: 13 weeks 2 days ago#1. You didn't answer my question. Were my babies murdered by God? If my babies were taken from me before they were born for no other reason than "God's will"...then with your theory, God murdered my babies (and millions of others that are lost for no other medical explanation).
#2. I think I already explained in my above comment my feelings on the differences between embryonic life and human life, so please refer to that.
and #3. Let me repeat this from a comment I left yesterday...
I'm pro-choice. And one of the things that makes me the most confused about the pro-life movement is - Their lack of outrage over the destruction of human embryos. Most people who are pro-life, are against embryonic stem cell research. But, every year 350,000 embryos are just thrown out with the trash at fertility clinics, because they can not be used for research. And, they can't be used for research, because the pro-life movement considers them "life"...but yet they allow this "life" to be tossed out in the trash. It seems hypocritical to me. Why is this "life" only worth saving under certain circumstances? It's like a mother who would want to donate a child's organs to help save someone...Why can't the parents of these embryos decide whether or not they are used for research?
Here is a quick video (from a post I did for BlogHer) of what I am talking about...
The other issue that is confusing to me, is the lack of desire to help these children once they are born. The republican/conservative movement, is against funding for single mothers, family planning, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, housing, education, and other programs...And when these programs are cut or eliminated (as they have been with the Bush administration), this leaves more and more children hungry, homeless, unhealthy, and uneducated. How is this justified? Shouldn't the life of the unborn child be protected even after it is born? It seems to me this "life" should be even more important after it is born...this child now "knows" it's alive, and it "feels" hungry, and it "suffers" without healthcare, and it "shivers" in the cold. Where is the outrage over this???
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog
The answer to your question
By: Chris Arsenault Posted: 13 weeks 2 days agoI'm sorry for the loss of your two babies, but God is sovereign and omnipotent. He has the power to give life and take life. We cannot take innocent life - that's still illegal, except for abortion.
The point of your contention is "for no other reason than "God's will". Do you know what God's will is?
Here's what I read this morning: - The Letter to the Church in Thyatira:
You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (Revelation 2:20-23 NIV)
Does God kill? Absolutely. I can't think of a greater killing than when the earth was flooded, but only Noah and his family were saved. The whole population of the earth died with the exception of 8 humans. That's a lot of death. but was it just?
To be a murderer, the death must be unjust. Jesus Christ was unjustly accused and put to death. That's murder. But if God raised Him from the dead, then your children too shall be raised on the last day. It's the second death that's final.
God must be just - He cannot tolerate injustice. Because God is ominiscient, He can see and intervene to provide justice - like he did for Noah, and Christ (who's physical family line came through the flood).
Do you know what God's will is? Try Matthew 7:21-23 and John 14:6.
The abortion debate is not about feelings, nor theories, but about behavior. Right now, you're only avoiding what apparently you can't adequately respond to, which means you can neither provide evidence nor refute my claims.
With regard to outrage Catherine - what are you expecting to see?
Personally, I am against all IVF and fertility treatments because of the moral and practical implications. It creates a third party market for humans (it establishes a market in humanity - slavery!) That is another argument.
I was talking with a state representative who has many unwed mothers in her district - she paraphrased their claim "Where are the pampers - what you gonna do for me?" My wife had the perfect reply - "where are the penises?"
The abortion dialogue avoids putting the responsibility where it belongs - on men and women together. Why?
Abortion actually does the opposite of what it intends because it offers the lure of a solution for sexual risk taking when it comes to intercourse. The women gets to cut off the man's offspring (Roe emasculates men legally - and men don't grow up because of this...but I digress) which is a false sense of security because many abortions are coerced. Erin's tale on this thread talked about an abusive relationship and I believe she said not a day goes by she doesn't think about her abortion - so she's shackled to that abusive man. That's sad, and to Erin, very real.
I've talked to a lot of folks and there's no doubt that the days are coming when the humanity of the unborn will be undeniable. Even Frances Kissling and Kate Michaelman understand what is happening, given their editorial in the LA Times on Jan 22, 2008.
Why do I do this? I have friends who've cycled through severe bouts of depression - who've had nervous breakdowns from their abortions. One friend had an abortion at the fifth month. She called it a baby, you used the word "baby" yourself when referring to your own miscarriages. Is it okay to kill our babies?
Social injustices and caring for children and appeals to pity don't change the truthfulness of what occurs. And the photos of late term abortions, if true, show a betrayal of trust and a tragedy of epic proportions.
The younger generation is growing up to condemn the older who choose because they survived while their siblings did not.
Yes - I survived and two of my siblings did not.
But instead of asking the Lord - we can ask our parents the haunting question - why did you kill my brother or sister? Did you want to kill me too?
Love and Life is a choice too.
I don't know why you're engaging in this discussion...
By: lauriewrites Posted: 13 weeks 2 days agowith this combative tone. In fact, I hesitate to respond for fear of receiving another unnecessarily incendiary response, but you're attacking good women, and that bothers me.
You have repeatedly assailed "feelings" in your comments, and yet your ranting comments are some of the most emotionally-driven I've ever seen.
Again, you dictate what someone is doing and criticize, and then pose a combative question. Bad move.
You may get better results if you calm down.
Laurie
LaurieWrites
Actually, an ad hominem attack
By: alyssaroyse Posted: 12 weeks 4 days agoIs made when you change the topic of conversation from the issue at hand to discussing - deriding - the nature of the person with whom you are discussing the issue at hand.
A good case in pint might be your recent post in which, rather than discussing the issues, you refer to those who support choice as "selfish smug generations." Or suggesting that "most abortions come about to hide marital infidelity" which, in effect assumes that people who have abortions are also liars and adulterers.
Those are both ad hominem attacks that reduce the discussion to one of name calling, rather than trying to understand the core disagreements as to when life begins and what rights individuals have according to what moral code. And certainly doesn't allow for peaceful coexistence in a diverse society that is based on the rule of law, not of religion.
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com
Three prior posts were removed! Why?
By: Chris Arsenault Posted: 12 weeks 4 days agoI've been passionate, respectful, yet demanding for sure, because as you might have read (had you followed the link) that an immature response to the whole debate is to avoid both the head and heart issues when it comes to serious dialogue.
Admittedly, looking back, it appears I'm long-winded because the columns have thinned out.
So others can make such statements, but when I do it, it's an ad hominen - right? Removing three prior posts was simply an argumentum ad Baculum - an appeal to force. If the argument is valid, and civil, then it should stand.
I stand by what I said - most abortions come about to hide marital infidelity AND sexual promiscuity (outside of marriage) where the child isn't wanted, and often neither is the man. People don't want to air their dirty laundry in public - it's too shameful, thus the overwhelming privacy thing. Can you think of any other reason why a husband shouldn't be informed that his wife is about to undergo an abortion? (Casey v. PP)
In certain cases, it's understandable why a woman wouldn't want the man, but then, if the sex is not rape in such situations, why was there consent in the first place? Incongruitous relationships shouldn't be condoned by the government through abortion. What's unreasonable about asking both men and women to be procreatively responsible?
Statistically, the hard cases in which the life of the mother may be threatened is very, very low - meaning all other abortions are elective, and occur under painful - not joyous, circumstances. That's rather obvious, I'd say. And merely wishing it weren't so, doesn't change that reality.
Clearly I'm not welcome here by those who have the power to delete my words - but merely removing them won't stop me from stating the reality all of us need to one day face.
Bye.
Email Chris...
By: Denise Posted: 12 weeks 4 days agoChris, I've sent you a couple of emails. If you did not receive them, you can contact me at denise @ blogher . com
~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager
Flamingo House Happenings
About equating you...
By: Chris Arsenault Posted: 12 weeks 2 days agoLaurie - what I did in response to your comment was grossly unfair to you as an individual. Whatever opinion you hold or express regarding these issues or my expressions, doesn't mean I can disrespect you as a person. I sincerely apologize and humbly ask for your forgiveness.
Jn 20:23
I agree with Suzanne.
By: Catherine Morgan Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoThere is no comparison between an abortion and the Holocaust. Regardless of how you "spin" it...Even if you consider an embryo a life (it's still only embryonic life), and can not be compared with a living, breathing, (suffering the Holocaust) human being.
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog
Catherine, pre-born (or
By: Dana J. Tuszke Posted: 13 weeks 2 days agoCatherine, pre-born (or unborn) babies are living, breathing human beings, too. It just so happens that their mother's body sustains that life. An abortion destroys that life. There is no "spinning" of facts here.
I have relatives who were victims of the Holocaust. It's devastating. The acts committed during WWII are unforgivable. They were forced from their homes in Poland and sent to concentration camps and killed just because they were Polish Jews. And so many abortions are performed just because the babies were unwanted. Abortion is a devastating act, too.
I have to respectfully disagree Dana...
By: Catherine Morgan Posted: 13 weeks 2 days agoI have to respectfully disagree Dana. We should probably agree to disagree...But, an embryo and/or unborn baby is not living or breathing. And, I really, really, hate the comparison with the Holocaust...there is no comparison as all.
Let me just add...I had six miscarriages before I had a successful pregnancy and gave birth to my son. I believe that each of those miscarriages were the "soul" of my son trying to get to me. I do not believe that they were six different souls trying to get to me. God works in mysterious ways (and even the most religious people can not claim to know when the soul enters the body)...and to me that is when life begins...we are our souls, not our bodies. I have the souls that are meant to be with me...my six lost pregnancies were not children I was meant to have (as much as it hurt at the time, I can see that now).
I don't ask you to believe as I do. But in my heart, I know what is true for me.
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog
I understand what you are
By: Dana J. Tuszke Posted: 13 weeks 10 hours agoI understand what you are trying to say, Catherine.
I can't imagine having six miscarriages. I couldn't handle the one I had 11 months after my son was born. I can only believe that God had better things in store for that baby. I'm positive that if I make it to Heaven I'll be reunited with him or her. That child was alive, with a heartbeat, receiving oxygen and nutrients from my body. The life of the child that grew inside me for such a short time was just as valuable as the lives of those killed in the Holocaust.
I know that Shannon meant no disrespect when she mentioned the Holocaust and I'll leave it at that. It's true, it will remain a matter of opinion, this comparison between the 48 million destroyed pregnancies (fetuses or embryos) and the 11 million people killed in the Holocaust. We will forever disagree. I get that.
The question I often get
By: Sister Honey Bunch Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoThe question I often get when I tell others I am pro-life is why many Christians can be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty. I personally am not pro death penalty, but it is often a question that stumps me since we pro-lifers seem to get thrown into the same pot. Any answers for me?
http://sistersofadifferentorder.blogspot.com/
I get that question too!
By: rocksinmydryer Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoI'm not pro-death penalty either. I don't really understand how people can be anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty, yet many do. That's why I'm thankful I only have to defend my own line of thinking, not everyone else's in the pro-life movement!
Shannon @ Rocks In My Dryer
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy and Family
rocksinmydryer.typepad.com
bloggygiveaways.com
One can be pro-life AND for the death penalty
By: Mamalogues Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoIt's simple: the death penalty is issued for criminals convicted of a crime. They are guilty. Unborn children have not broken any laws, therefor cannot be convicted and sentenced to death.
So one can be pro-life and pro-death penalty; to say otherwise overlooks the basic principle which separates and defines the two.
I am pro-life and for death penalty when applied to convicted criminals issued the sentence.
This was a great post and I'm thrilled that it didn't turn into a flame war; I know this topic is a sensitive one. Kudos to all you ladies.
Dana
On KFTK 97.1 FM/Fox News Radio
Mamalogues.com
In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Pop Mama
Can you believe in both?
By: Plastic Daffodils Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoI already commented on my thoughts on abortion, and as a Christian I am also against the death penalty. God commanded, "Thou shalt not kill." Never did He say, "You shouldn't kill, unless someone commits a crime (etc.)." So for me, the answer is obvious.
The Bible also says, "An eye
By: L.S. Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoThe Bible also says, "An eye for an eye." I guess you wouldn't totally be Pro-Death Penalty until somebody close to you or that you personally know gets kidnapped, tortured/brutally raped and murdered. It can be hard to support the Death Penalty until that happens.
Off the Main Topic
By: Plastic Daffodils Posted: 13 weeks 2 days agoThe Ten Commandments came after "an eye for an eye" chronologically. It's easy to pick and choose what you want to believe out of the Bible, but that's not really how it works. And yes, I have had loved ones who have been hurt/killed by others, but it is not my place to pass the judgment of death upon those I believed were at fault. Not to say that I don't believe in punishment (e.g. life in prison). If you read the statistics about how many people were proven innocent after they were executed, you might change your mind about the death penalty as well.
Actually, He did
By: MrsDugger Posted: 13 weeks 2 days agoGenesis 9:6 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Well said, Shannon
By: KellyC Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoWhile I don't carry picket signs for either side, I was definitely pro-choice when I was young, and I'm definitely pro-life now.
For me, the pinnacle moment was the first time I looked at one of those "A child is born"-type books. It showed in-utero photography of a developing embryo and fetus -- perfectly formed little human beings just weeks since conception. All I could think is, "How could I have graduated from high school and college and NEVER LEARNED THIS????"
Seems like pretty basic information to me. I truly thought an embryo was just a bunch of cells. So naive.
Kelly
http://www.2passthetorch.com
My thoughts....
By: Lyndsay Daniel Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoYou write with thougtfulness and clarity. I admire this and am impressed. However, I do wish to ask you to develop one aspect of your argument a little further. You write:
"I defend her choice to decide whether to have sex, and with whom, and how often, and whether or not to use birth control."
My question to you is, what if a woman hasn't had that choice? What if a woman has experienced a rape or sexual assualt that has led to a pregnancy that is not wanted.
You seem to attempt to answer this question by mentioning that those who are pro-life need to be aiding those who are faced with a crisis pregnancy. But, in the same way that there is nothing "practical" about a rape or sexual assault, there is often nothing practical about planning for a crisis pregnancy.
Just some thoughts,
Lyndsay Daniel
www.vegancowgirl.blogspot.com
Why punish the child?
By: ThriftyKaren Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoIt is a horrible crime when a woman is raped. About 1 or 2 out of 1000 rapes results in pregnancy. I certainly don't take rape lightly, but I don't see taking away the child's right to live as the answer.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_lov...
I'll be totally honest with you...
By: rocksinmydryer Posted: 13 weeks 4 days ago... and tell you that I really wrestle with this aspect of the pro-life/pro-choice question. It breaks my heart to think of a woman who has been raped dealing with a crisis pregnancy on top of such agony. But it breaks my heart EQUALLY to think of an unborn child, who is blameless in the rape, being denied a chance at life. It's not a popular answer in this issue, but my honest one would have to be "I don't know." I'm wrestling with it, researching it, praying over it, and hoping that something will make sense to me.
Thank you for voicing the question. It's an important one.
Shannon @ Rocks In My Dryer
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy and Family
rocksinmydryer.typepad.com
bloggygiveaways.com
I agree with Shannon. I'm at
By: L.S. Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoI agree with Shannon. I'm at an "I don't know" position with this right now.
I currently work for a crisis center & witness this happening on a daily basis. There are times when I believe that God wouldn't allow a life to bloom unless He wanted it to happen. Then again, I had to deal with a 12 year old girl who had lost her virginity & gotten pregnant in a gang rape & it broke my heart. I wanted her (and her parents) to be able to choose if she wanted to have an abortion or not so her life wouldn't be affected & thrown off track at school & etc. just to have the child, even if she gave it up for adoption. But her life obviously was affected quite horribly from the actual raping, so I'm at a loss for what should be considered for these type of cases.
Congratulations
By: villagemama Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoHi Shannon, way to express your views on s-u-c-h a controversial topic!
me again
By: villagemama Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoMeant to add: I appreciate your 'no movement' is perfect' line.
villagemama
http://mamasvillage.blogspot.com/
It's so easy to cast stones...
By: Robin-Pensieve Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoBravo for taking this on intelligently and compassionately, Shannon. Your progression of thought, your own decision-evolution with regard to this topic, has got to mirror and resonate with many.
It is SO easy to make judgments, to SHOUT rhetoric, to draw lines in the sand when it comes to abortion. I've done it myself.
But when you come face to face with making that decision, when a close friend or family member--even yourself!--finds herself in the circumstance of uninvited pregnancy, no matter how she arrived at that state, black and white can blur into an unexpected gray. No matter how firm your conviction before...I've seen this more than once. While it surprised me the first time, I had more clarity the second. Both times grieved me for the women involved (and I know them, too).
"Legalists" in both camps tend to minimize the human factor; it's much easier to reduce the conversation to an issue with a right side and a wrong side, than to remember you're dealing with a woman who is faced with life-altering decision; either decision affects more than one person for a lifetime.
I can't help but hope that means one more baby being born....
Well said!
By: rocksinmydryer Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoYou said that very well, Robin. I do think that both sides so feel incredibly strongly about their stance that the humanity (of both mother AND baby) sometimes gets lost in the shuffle.
Shannon @ Rocks In My Dryer
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy and Family
rocksinmydryer.typepad.com
bloggygiveaways.com
Well Said Shannon
By: My Memories Posted: 13 weeks 4 days ago"Simply put, life trumps choice."
To answer Lyndsay's thoughts: In the case of rape/sexual assault there are treatments such as the Morning After Pill that can be used, instead of an invasive abortion. In general, I don't agree with the Morning After Pill either, but for rape/assault, I do. I personally know women who have had abortions and none of them were for rape/assault. It was their form of birth control, their choice.
There needs to be more education and more emphasis on personal responsibility, whether that be abstinence or in the form of birth control pills. I am pro-life and I believe that when a woman knowingly chooses to have sex without using birth control, she has made a Choice to take a 50/50 chance on getting pregnant.
I believe that it is a women's right to not have a baby if she does not want to - as long as she has made her decision and taken every precaution before conception occurs.
If you are the responsible party in an auto accident and a pregnant woman dies, you can be charged with a double homicide. Why then when a woman decides to take the life of her unborn child is it OK?
~Sheila~
My Memories
good point
By: ThriftyKaren Posted: 13 weeks 4 days ago"If you are the responsible party in an auto accident and a pregnant woman dies, you can be charged with a double homicide. Why then when a woman decides to take the life of her unborn child is it OK?"
I wonder the same thing. It doesn't make sense.
Good Post
By: Ronnica - Kansas Girl Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoThanks for a simple, well-laid out argument, and one I can agree with. It does come down to the fact that life triumphs choice.
Thanks again!
Hard Job Well Done
By: GoldenGoodness Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoWow, I'm sure that was really hard to do...
You did a great job of explaining your position, so logical. You are a classy lady, that shows in your responses to the opposers. You make very simple analogies to get the point across...great job.
Thanks for taking on such a touchy subject!
Fellow Pro-Lifer
Well done!
By: jills Posted: 13 weeks 4 days agoShannon,
You did a great job on a TOUGH subject! It's nice to read someone that doesn't condemn just because beliefs are different. I agree with you and thank you for taking on a subject knowing there would be much opposition. You are a wonderful communicator!!!
What are you doing to help?
By: dawn224 Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoMy question to people who are pro life echoes one of your closing points: What are you doing to help?
I've been struggling through writing a post of my own on this, and I have difficulty supporting a pro-life movement when we live in a country where not everyone has insurance to provide adequate prenatal care, where poverty is prevalent, where unemployment exists, where family leave is often unpaid and also brief ...
If we had realistic support systems for women who are pregnant and can't financially care for a child, if we were all actively helping her and caring for her for those 38-42 weeks and then the post partum time to assist her to be able to care for and give birth so that adoption were an option, then that, to me, would completely change the face of the issue, however, what I'm seeing is people saying that the unborn life trumps all - so deal with it.
I wish we could just all step away from the Roe v. Wade debate, quit feeling helpless (from both sides of the debate) and start investing our energies into finding ways to help women at every step of the way. I wish everyone would just put down their picket signs and go hold someone's hand, or mentor a student ... do the things that make you winner no matter what.
(forgive my verb tense issues - it was a long night short on sleep here)
ugh
By: dawn224 Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoand total apologies for the cheesy ending there.
Wow, you read my heart
By: madkatmom Posted: 13 weeks 3 days agoShannon, you've successfully put into words feelings I've been unable to articulate. Thank you, thank you for presenting the point of view that I've felt for years, but was unable to voice because I couldn't successfully translate my feelings into real words.
I also struggle with how people can be pro-life/pro-death penalty. I don't believe it is our right to kill, even those who perhaps deserve it. The waters that determine who "deserves" the death penalty are murky, something I learned when I covered capital murder trials as a cub reporter. But that's another subject, for another time.
I intend to bookmark this post and refer to it when anyone asks me why I am pro-life. You've said it far better than I can.
Bless you!