"Pro-Life" Candidates should put up or shut up

[WeaselInYerFoot]

A great article from once again... Chuck Baldwin.

I've also done some more research on Alan Keyes, and he's a pretty good guy. If he hadn't of used the race card so much during the PBS debate I might of liked him even more.


PRO-LIFE" CANDIDATES SHOULD PUT UP OR SHUT UP

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
November 30, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Please consider this scenario. Several youngsters are drowning in a neighborhood lake. They are thrashing the water and crying out for help. There is a large, heavy raft nearby that could be used to rescue the drowning youths, but it would take several people to haul it into the water and then row it out to the victims.

Now, as it happens, there are more than enough people standing around the lake whose combined efforts would be more than adequate to rescue the drowning young people. Instead of grabbing the life raft and heading out to save the victims, however, they all start making speeches.

One by one, the would-be rescuers holler out that they believe in life; they believe in saving the lives of the drowning young people. They are all "pro-life." The only problem is, none of them grabs the raft and actually attempts to save the victims. So, here is the sixty-four million dollar question: are these people really "pro-life"? Do they really want to save the victims, or are they simply pro-life pretenders who only want to talk about saving lives but not actually do anything about it?

There is no one reading this column who would accept the pro-life rhetoric of the people around the lake as justification for not grabbing the life raft and actually saving the lives of those who were drowning. Then, why do "pro-life" conservatives accept the rhetoric of Republican politicians when there is no action to back it up?

If Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee are truly "pro-life," they need to do more than just talk. They need to put up or shut up!

Ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't take some magical Supreme Court appointment to overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand. If all the Republicans who keep telling us that they are "pro-life" (including President George W. Bush) were really pro-life, then why, in spite of having had ample time and opportunity to end the abortion holocaust, have they not done so?

In fact, the GOP has controlled the U.S. Supreme Court since the infamous Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion-on-demand was handed down in 1973. That means GOP appointments have dominated the Court for over thirty years, and yet abortion-on-demand is still the law of the land.

Beyond that, for six years (2000-2006), "pro-life" Republicans controlled the entire federal government. And, for six years, millions of unborn babies cried their silent screams as the abortionists' scalpels ripped their little bodies apart in abortuaries throughout America. And to use my opening analogy, all these "pro-life" Republicans did was stand by the side of the lake and talk "pro-life," while the youngsters drowned in front of their eyes. During all this time, the life raft sat unused on the shore.

Dear reader, the life raft for the millions of unborn babies victimized by abortion-on-demand is the U.S. Constitution. However, we have a bunch of arrogant and conceited imbeciles in Washington, D.C., who have neither the smarts nor guts to use this wonderful life raft. It seems that the vast majority of them have absolutely no knowledge of the Constitution--even though each and every one of them takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend it.

The only presidential candidate who has a commitment to saving the lives of unborn babies and who understands the constitutional authority of Congress to end abortion-on-demand is Texas Congressman Ron Paul (with the exception of Alan Keyes, who recently announced his candidacy). You read it right. At this point, John McCain is all talk; Mitt Romney is all talk; Fred Thompson is all talk. And even Mike Huckabee is all talk.

Huckabee says that when he was Governor of Arkansas he required parental notification for abortions, required a woman give informed consent before having an abortion, and required a woman be told that her baby would experience pain and be given the option of anesthesia for her baby. (Source: Mike Huckabee's website) While this is commendable, none of Huckabee's actions did anything to actually end abortion-on-demand.

When it comes to ending abortion-on-demand and overturning Roe v. Wade, the only thing Mike Huckabee (and the rest of the Republican presidential candidates, save Ron Paul and Alan Keyes) will say is that they will appoint the right judges, as if they have no power as President to do anything else. (Good grief! Even Rudy Giuliani says as much.) My friends, these "pro-life" Republicans are either woefully ignorant themselves or they are pulling the proverbial wool over our eyes.

Ron Paul seems to be the only presidential candidate who understands that under Article. III. Section. 2., the Constitution gives to the Congress of the United States the power to hold rogue courts in check and to overturn outlandish rulings such as Roe v. Wade.

Accordingly, Ron Paul has introduced and reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act (including in the current Congress). If passed, this Bill would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The Bill also recognizes the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, this Bill would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision. The Bill would also deny funding for abortion providers. In plain language, the Bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand.

Is it not more than interesting that "pro-life" President George W. Bush, along with the "pro-life" Republican Party leadership of both houses of Congress, refused--and continues to refuse--to support Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act? In addition, not a single "pro-life" presidential candidate outside of Ron Paul has even bothered to mention the Sanctity of Life Act, much less aggressively call for its implementation with a promise that, if elected President, he would sign it into law. Not Huckabee; not McCain; not Thompson; not Romney; none of them!

Why did John McCain not introduce Dr. Paul's Sanctity of Life bill in the U.S. Senate? Why have Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson not committed to use the power of the bully pulpit of the White House to push Congress to implement this Act? Again, either these men are ignorant of their constitutional duties and responsibilities (in which case, they are unqualified for the office of President) or they are not truly serious about overturning Roe v. Wade and ending abortion-on-demand (in which case, they are conservative phonies and frauds).

I say again, it is time for "pro-life" Republicans to put up or shut up!

Beyond that, it is time for Christian conservatives to stop being so gullible. We need to start looking beyond eloquent rhetoric and campaign clichés. We need to begin demanding results.

Every four years, Republicans trot out a conservative façade during an election season for the purpose of obtaining the votes of susceptible Christians. And every four years, conservative Christians--like starving catfish--take the bait: hook, line, and sinker.

"Save us from the monster," seems to be the cry of well-meaning--but easily manipulated--conservatives. The "monster" is whoever the Democrats nominate, of course. But, ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has done absolutely nothing to change the course of the country. Nothing! In fact, it has only gotten worse with Republicans in charge.

Ron Paul is the only candidate running against the status quo. He is the only candidate who takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. He is the only candidate who, if elected, would actually turn the country around. A Ron Paul victory would launch a new American revolution: a revolution of freedom and independence such as we have not seen since 1776. Furthermore, among the major Republican presidential contenders, Ron Paul is the only candidate whose pro-life commitment extends beyond rhetoric.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

PS. One further note regarding Mike Huckabee. He will not win the GOP nomination, but what he will do is wind up endorsing (or perhaps even being selected as the Vice Presidential candidate) whichever Republican candidate wins the nomination--even if he is a pro-abortion candidate. Thus, he will fulfill his role in this election: to bring Christian conservatives into the Republican fold, even without a commitment to the life issue by their standard-bearer. In other words, Huckabee is the establishment's guy to make sure that the Christian conservatives stay "in line."

© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.

[Valpo]

Alan Keyes is a certified nutjob.

McCain has been consistent on his Pro-Life record, and not that I like him, but I believe Thompson has been too. Romney on the other hand...

[middletree]

On a political level, this article makes sense. However, abortion is a spiritual issue. It's demonic, pure and simple. It's an evil act, and the spirit of the age (that is, Satan himself) has deluded many people in the way they think about abortion: that it's not so bad, or that it is better than some alternatives.

More importantly, abortion is not the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. The problem is a nation of deceived people, open to deception because they have not yielded themselves to Jesus. Yes, this includes many Christians.

This is why abortion will never be solved by laws, and why the people have not pushed politicians to make laws which would prohibit this barbaric practice. It's a spiritual issue, and the only way to open the eyes of the people is for them to turn to Jesus, the only one who can lift spiritual deceptions. A political solution can never resolve a spiritual issue.

[mat1583]

On a political level, this article makes sense. However, abortion is a spiritual issue. It's demonic, pure and simple. It's an evil act, and the spirit of the age (that is, Satan himself) has deluded many people in the way they think about abortion: that it's not so bad, or that it is better than some alternatives.

More importantly, abortion is not the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. The problem is a nation of deceived people, open to deception because they have not yielded themselves to Jesus. Yes, this includes many Christians.

This is why abortion will never be solved by laws, and why the people have not pushed politicians to make laws which would prohibit this barbaric practice. It's a spiritual issue, and the only way to open the eyes of the people is for them to turn to Jesus, the only one who can lift spiritual deceptions. A political solution can never resolve a spiritual issue.

I agree for the most part. I don't believe that a spirit just pops in a baby at some certain time in the pregnancy. I believe the spirit is there from conception. This is why I believe that a fetus is a human life from conception. Convincing non-believers of this is very difficult since the spiritual issue does not matter to them or make any sense.

I also find it interesting that Ron Paul said in his whole career as an OB/Gyn, he has never had one case in which an abortion was absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother...not 1 case, and 4,000 deliveries.

-washboard

[Jesuslove]

On a political level, this article makes sense. However, abortion is a spiritual issue. It's demonic, pure and simple. It's an evil act, and the spirit of the age (that is, Satan himself) has deluded many people in the way they think about abortion: that it's not so bad, or that it is better than some alternatives.

More importantly, abortion is not the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. The problem is a nation of deceived people, open to deception because they have not yielded themselves to Jesus. Yes, this includes many Christians.

This is why abortion will never be solved by laws, and why the people have not pushed politicians to make laws which would prohibit this barbaric practice. It's a spiritual issue, and the only way to open the eyes of the people is for them to turn to Jesus, the only one who can lift spiritual deceptions. A political solution can never resolve a spiritual issue.

I agree that abortion is horrible. I wish there was never another abortion performed. However, I think the women choosing to have an abortion are making life and death decisions. I doubt many women celebrate having an abortion. Needless to say, it is probably the most difficult decision any woman has to make. To me, winning the abortion debate isn't about changing laws. It's about changing hearts.

[Jesuslove]

I also find it interesting that Ron Paul said in his whole career as an OB/Gyn, he has never had one case in which an abortion was absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother...not 1 case, and 4,000 deliveries.

-washboard

I'm just curioius.... and I don't know the answer. If a woman miscarries, yet the deceased fetus stays inside her... when the baby is removed from the uterus... is that considered an abortion?

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Alan Keyes is a certified nutjob.

McCain has been consistent on his Pro-Life record, and not that I like him, but I believe Thompson has been too. Romney on the other hand...

McCain in the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/mccain082499.htm):


I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.


However, I used to hold this view as well at the beginning of this year. My mind has changed since then and I can understand if McCain's view has also changed throughout time.

There were rumors a while back about Thompson lobbying for a pro-choice group aver 10 years ago. No way to confirm that and again, he may have changed his mind, but the real question is "What will they do about it?" President Bush is pro-life, what did he do? We've bought into their rhetoric for 40 years and what's been done? Same crap, different President imho (SCDP!)

[WeaselInYerFoot]

On a political level, this article makes sense. However, abortion is a spiritual issue. It's demonic, pure and simple. It's an evil act, and the spirit of the age (that is, Satan himself) has deluded many people in the way they think about abortion: that it's not so bad, or that it is better than some alternatives.

More importantly, abortion is not the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. The problem is a nation of deceived people, open to deception because they have not yielded themselves to Jesus. Yes, this includes many Christians.

This is why abortion will never be solved by laws, and why the people have not pushed politicians to make laws which would prohibit this barbaric practice. It's a spiritual issue, and the only way to open the eyes of the people is for them to turn to Jesus, the only one who can lift spiritual deceptions. A political solution can never resolve a spiritual issue.

I think the biggest solution to this is to teach people that life isn't a porn movie, or filled with one night stands, contrary to what TV shows us.

Also educate women that they aren't being forced to have sex with some guy they picked up at a bar. Meaning they can be pro-choice (both men and women), because they have a right to choose whether or not to have sex. It's that simple. It's almost as if they think they either A) have no choice but to sleep around and cause accidents or B) don't really know how babies are made.

[mat1583]

I'm just curioius.... and I don't know the answer. If a woman miscarries, yet the deceased fetus stays inside her... when the baby is removed from the uterus... is that considered an abortion?

From wikipedia, with references:

Miscarriage or spontaneous abortion is the natural or spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving, generally defined in humans at a gestation of prior to 20 weeks. Miscarriage is the most common complication of early pregnancy.[1] The medical term "spontaneous abortion" is used in reference to miscarriages because the medical term "abortion" refers to any terminated pregnancy, deliberately induced or spontaneous, although in common parlance it refers specifically to active termination of pregnancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage

So yes, it's considered an abortion, but does not have the same connotations.

-washboard

[middletree]

I'm just curioius.... and I don't know the answer. If a woman miscarries, yet the deceased fetus stays inside her... when the baby is removed from the uterus... is that considered an abortion?

More important is this question: is it murder? And the answer would be no. You can't kill a dead person, just like you can't heat hot water. (inside joke: reference to another thread)

[danbos]

I've got a question about abortion. Does anyone know why it is that our laws make abortion legal, yet if someone kills a pregnant women and the baby dies, that person can be charged with two counts of murder?

[Evanescence]

On a political level, this article makes sense. However, abortion is a spiritual issue. It's demonic, pure and simple. It's an evil act, and the spirit of the age (that is, Satan himself) has deluded many people in the way they think about abortion: that it's not so bad, or that it is better than some alternatives.

More importantly, abortion is not the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. The problem is a nation of deceived people, open to deception because they have not yielded themselves to Jesus. Yes, this includes many Christians.

This is why abortion will never be solved by laws, and why the people have not pushed politicians to make laws which would prohibit this barbaric practice. It's a spiritual issue, and the only way to open the eyes of the people is for them to turn to Jesus, the only one who can lift spiritual deceptions. A political solution can never resolve a spiritual issue.

Good post tree....very good. :)

[Evanescence]

I just don't understand the double standards....

If a young woman gives birth and kils her baby....she may get 2-12 yrs....depending on the situation. But, she can go to a clinic and have it sucked out of her and its a medical procedure....

Labels are such BS....

[Jason]

Alan Keyes is a certified nutjob.

Why?

Keyes is the only candidate that comes close to my beliefs.

[Andi]

......You can't kill a dead person, just like you can't heat hot water. (inside joke: reference to another thread)

You just can't let it go....lol

[VerbumReale]

I agree that abortion is horrible. I wish there was never another abortion performed. However, I think the women choosing to have an abortion are making life and death decisions. I doubt many women celebrate having an abortion. Needless to say, it is probably the most difficult decision any woman has to make. To me, winning the abortion debate isn't about changing laws. It's about changing hearts.

When you say that they are making life and death decisions are you referring to the situations where the mother's health or life is at stake?? Those happen yes, but I believe more often that is not the case. And no doubt they do struggle with it, but why do you think that is?? Could it be becuase they realize they are taking a life??

I agree that way too much attention has been put on overturning Roe V Wade and in that sense I disagreed with much of what was in the article. I think Baldwin is completely wrong when he says Hukabee is all talk. I think many of the policies that Huckabe put in place that were mentioned probably did a lot more to combat abortion than somebody who spent that whole time trying to figure out how they could get Roe V Wade overturned. And if you read Huckabee's book you can see that he sees pro-life as being way bigger than abortion.

Having said that I would one day like to see Roe V Wade overturned. But until that is accomplished, and even after, we are also going to need to address abortion from a vantage point that changes the way people see it. It's more important to make it so women don't want to have abortions rather than simply making it so they can't.

[rossid]

And why is still a fetus when someone 'murders' it illegaly according to state/federal law? Why isn't it a baby, which I equate with human life, but a fetus which pro-abortion folks say is not a life. If it is not a life how can it be murdered, say in a robbery or killing the mother, but not a murder in abortion?

IMHO just like hate crimes - a crime is a crime - it makes no sense.

A life is a life - abortion makes no sense.

Yes it is a symptom of the culture.

[SonflowerGurl]

When you say that they are making life and death decisions are you referring to the situations where the mother's health or life is at stake?? Those happen yes, but I believe more often that is not the case. And no doubt they do struggle with it, but why do you think that is?? Could it be becuase they realize they are taking a life??

I agree that way too much attention has been put on overturning Roe V Wade and in that sense I disagreed with much of what was in the article. I think Baldwin is completely wrong when he says Hukabee is all talk. I think many of the policies that Huckabe put in place that were mentioned probably did a lot more to combat abortion than somebody who spent that whole time trying to figure out how they could get Roe V Wade overturned. And if you read Huckabee's book you can see that he sees pro-life as being way bigger than abortion.

Having said that I would one day like to see Roe V Wade overturned. But until that is accomplished, and even after, we are also going to need to address abortion from a vantage point that changes the way people see it. It's more important to make it so women don't want to have abortions rather than simply making it so they can't.

Well said.

I personally think Roe vs Wade is actually a symtom of our culture devaluing human life and 35 years later we are seeing the fruit of such a decision. Giving generous benefit of doubt to those who made the decision back in the 70's that maybe they were decriminalizing something that was being done in back rooms, illegally to limit botched abortions. Unfortunately the result from such thinking is it promoted idea that it was more important what is "right for me" instead of the greater good of everyone, including the child killed. It really is about hearts vs laws. Whether you agree with Roe vs Wade or not, for which I don't agree, it is currently law of the land and not something one elected official can arbitarly go in and change based simply on their moral code. There is a process for making laws and for repelling laws.

Definitely, a cautionary tale of allowing what we know is wrong to become law.

[HotWireD]

I've got a question about abortion. Does anyone know why it is that our laws make abortion legal, yet if someone kills a pregnant women and the baby dies, that person can be charged with two counts of murder?


I investigate murders (amongst other crimes) and I do not understand either.

I also have many friends who, if they had a fly in their home, would catch it and throw it out the window - not wanting to even kill a fly - and yet they are pro-abortion. Makes no sense to me.

[clemsontigers23]

Found an article talking about Abortion Myths. I think it will go to show how often a woman's life is really at stake:

http://www.tennesseerighttolife. org/human_life_issues/human_life_issues_abortio n_lies_and_myths.htm

MYTH: Women really need abortion for health reasons.

FACT: An Alan Guttmacher Institute survey found that nearly one-half of women obtaining abortions said they used no birth control method during the month they got pregnant.

FACT: Add to this the fact that, at most, only five percent of all abortions are done for the mother's physical or psychological health. Rape and incest are cited as reasons for less than 1 % of all abortions.

FACT: Nationally, 82 % of women obtaining abortions are unmarried. The statistics strongly suggest abortion is used as birth control.

MYTH: Abortion is an unfortunate necessity and doesn't happen often.

FACT: 1.4 million abortions take place each year in the United States. Nearly one in three pregnancies ends in abortion.

MYTH: We need abortion to reduce child abuse. Wanted children will not become abused children.

FACT: Abortion has done nothing to reduce child abuse. Actually child abuse increased over 1000% from 1973, the year abortion was legalized throughout the United States, to 1986.

The Myth of Mass Back-Alley Abortion Deaths*
One of the most common arguments abortion advocates make in defense of legal abortion is that making abortion illegal will cause women to go to the "back alleys" and obtain unsafe abortions. They cite how thousands of women died as a result of unsafe abortions before abortion was legalized through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.

We already know legal abortions are not safe - they can and do cause women to lose their lives and harm women physically and emotionally. So let's address some other issues.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, admits his group lied about the number of women who died from illegal abortions when testifying before the Supreme Court in 1972. "We spoke of 5,000 - 10,000 deaths a year.... I confess that I knew the figures were totally false ... it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?"

That claim of thousands of maternal deaths due to illegal abortion doesn't measure up when compared with other statistics. About 50,000 women of child-bearing age die each year -- from all causes combined. To suggest that 10,000 of these deaths were from illegal abortion would make that the cause of one out of every five deaths, or twenty percent. This would have made illegal abortion the leading cause of death among women in that age group.

What, then, did cause abortion-related deaths due to illegal abortions? According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the legalization of abortion was not responsible for reducing abortion-related deaths. This discovery of antibiotics in the 1940's did that by providing effective treatment for infections.

The National Center for Heath Statistics reveals that before 1941, there were over 1,400 abortion-related deaths. Yet after Penicillin became available to control infections, the number of deaths was reduced in the 1950's to approximately 250 per year. By 1966, with abortion still illegal in all states, the number of deaths had dropped steadily to 120. The reason? New and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population.

Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicaps or deformities, and when the pregnancy jeopardized the life of the mother (all of which constitute only 5% of the abortion cases today). There were two notable exceptions - California in 1967 and New York in 1970 legalized abortion on demand.

Legalizing abortion should have eliminated some deaths related to illegal abortions. That is not the case. In the years from 1963-1969, there were an average of approximately 55 deaths per year due to illegal abortions. In 1970, after this initial wave of laws legalizing abortions, there were 109. Deaths from illegal abortions increased.

By the year before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision allowing legal abortion on demand in all fifty states, the death rate for illegal abortions had fallen to 24 in 1972 (with 25 additional deaths as a result of legal abortions). Now abortion was legal in all fifty states and back alley abortions eliminated with their alleged total of maternal deaths. In 1973 there should have been a sharp drop in abortion-related deaths if abortion advocates were right that legalizing abortion would make abortion safe.

Yet abortion-related deaths increased again with 25 deaths resulting from legal abortion in 1973, 26 in 1974 and 29 in 1975.

Some have claimed that the number of illegal abortion-related deaths were not reported accurately or underreported. Yet, when a woman was seriously injured by an abortion, she went to another doctor for care. The abortion practitioner was rarely involved at that point. The new doctor in many cases had to attempt to save the mother's life. In cases of maternal death, this new doctor was required to report, and falsification of the death certificate was a felony. Therefore, prior to legalization of abortion, it's safe to say deaths from illegal abortions were rarely covered up.

Yet, even if the case can be made that deaths resulting from illegal abortions were underreported, it is equally safe to say that deaths resulting from legal abortions are underreported. In Maryland in 1991, there were four women who died from legal abortions that year. None of the four were reported to the Federal Centers for Disease Control for its statistics. Whereas prior to the legalization of abortion a second doctor, with little or no reason to cover up a death for which he or she was not responsible, was involved in an attempt to save the mother's life; with legalized abortion the abortion practitioner is usually the one attempting to save the mother's life when the abortion threatens her life.

Other specific instances help us see how reporting for the number of deaths related to illegal abortions may be low: In 1977 an Ohio doctor noted that while the official statistics showed no abortion-related deaths in Ohio that year, he personally knew of two. If one doctor knew of two cases, how many were there really?

Abortion was legalized in California in 1967. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times in 1972, official records showed four legal abortion-related deaths in the entire country from 1967 to 1972. Yet a reporter for that paper uncovered three deaths only in Los Angeles in just one month in 1972.

A reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times uncovered 12 legal abortion-related deaths in that city in 1978. The government statistics show only 16 deaths for the entire country in that year.

Another important point is that many of the abortion practitioners performing abortions after Roe v. Wade were the same people performing illegal abortions. In the July 1960 edition of the American Journal of Public Health, an article by Dr. Mary Calderon, then medical director of Planned Parenthood, which stated:

"90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; ... They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is... Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."

Here is a candid admission that not only are illegal abortions not being done by quack doctors but that the death rate from illegal abortions was "low." This flies in the face of claims of several thousand women losing their lives to illegal abortions and the claim that illegal abortions were performed by quack doctors and not by physicians.

As we can see, "Never again" never was. There were not several thousand women losing their lives due to illegal abortions performed by quack doctors. Effective medical treatments helped reduce abortion related deaths and the legalization of abortion never played a significant role (and never will) in affecting the numbers of women who died from legal or illegal abortion-related deaths. That women continue to die from so-called "safe, legal" abortions (perhaps in greater numbers than we know) is a clear indication that abortion is unsafe and hurts women - legal or otherwise.

Another interesting graphic of why women get abortions:

WHY WOMEN HAVE ABORTIONS

Woman is concerned about how having a baby could change her life 16%
Woman can’t afford baby now 21%
Woman has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood 12%
Woman is unready for responsibility 21%
Woman doesn’t want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant 1%
Woman is not mature enough or is too young to have a child 11%
Woman has all the children she wanted or has all grown-up children 8%
Husband or partner wants woman to have an abortion 1%
Fetus has possible health problem 3%
Woman has health problem 3%
Woman’s parents want her to have abortion <1%
Woman was victim of rape or incest 1%
Other 3%

(Totals do not add to 100% because of rounding)

Deformed baby less than = 3%
Threat to life or health of mother = maybe 3%
Rape and incest = 1%
Mother has social problems = 93%

[clemsontigers23]

Another great source disproving the myths about abortion put forth by pro-deathers:

http://www.family.org.au/Journals/2004/abortion_myth.htm

Myth: Abortion is about helping women. Wrong. Abortion is about making money - big money. Greed, not love, is the motivating factor behind the abortion industry. At Everett’s clinics, an abortion for a woman eighteen weeks pregnant cost $375. At twenty weeks it cost $500. Her abortion clinics became abortion mills, working with assembly line efficiency. Operating seven days a week, she could oversee 400 abortions a month. She received a $25 commission for each abortion. Thus she was earning $10,000 a month. Her plans were to have 5 abortion clinics operating full-time in the Texas area, performing 600 abortions a month, earning her $15,000.

Abortion was definitely big business for Everett. She had ads in the Yellow Pages of five southern states, each with a toll-free number. Ads in newspapers offered coupons with 10 per cent discounts! Setting up clinics near high schools was an effective tactic. She even planned to set up a clinic by a mall so customers could go shopping while waiting for their abortion! Says Everett: “Greed - the love of money and the things I could have with it - blinded me. [I was] an abortionist who used whatever means available to get a woman to have an abortion for the sake of money.”

This insatiable lust for money resulted in abortions being performed on women who were not even pregnant! Indeed, the temptation was to get every woman who came into a clinic to have an abortion. Says Everett, “Do you think an abortionist who works on a straight commission is going to tell a woman who has signed her consent form and has already paid in full that she is not pregnant?”

Myth: Abortion should be legal because of the ‘hard cases’. Rape and incest are two common excuses for abortion. However several comments are in order. First, regarding rape, the cases of conception are quite low. Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute has admitted that in America abortions for rape amount to one per cent of all abortions. Another researcher has found that cases of rape and incest make up only 0.08 per cent of all abortions in America.

While we can all sympathise with such difficult cases, we must be careful not to allow such concerns to result in the sweeping arm of the law. The legal axiom, hard cases make for bad laws, needs to be observed here.

Morover, it needs to be recalled that when legalised abortion was first debated, it was for these very hard cases that it was proposed. But as concerned thinkers warned back then, this would be the start of a slippery slope. And that is exactly what has happened. As bioethicist John Wyatt puts it, "over the past thirty years we have moved imperceptively from abortion as an option in extreme circumstances, through abortion as an option on request, to a duty to abort".

Myth: Abortion helps us to avoid mentally and physically defective babies. Increasingly abortion is being used when a parent is told a child may have a physical or mental disorder. Indeed, it is already becoming a method of sex selection.

However, a number of assumptions underlie this myth. One is that handicapped children are social liabilities. Who says so? Indeed, what is normal? Is a child with only one arm less than a person? Is a deaf child a social burden? Many handicapped or disabled children, along with their families, have spoken of the rich and rewarding lives they have lived. If we decide that society cannot accept a child with Down's syndrome today, what will we prohibit tommorow? Redheads? Dwarfs?

Dr C Everett Koop has spent much of his life working with "deformed" and handicapped people. He says that it is his "constant experience that disability and unhappiness do not necessarily go together. Some of the most unhappy children whom I have known have all of the pysical and mental faculities and on the other hand some of the happiest yougsters have bourne burdens which I myself would find very difficult to bear".

Moreover, who decides who should live and who should dike? Those who decide that certain handicapped children deserve to die may also decide that certain adults who are handicapped also deserve to die. Indeed, infanticide and euthanasia are logical outcimes of the arguements for abortion. Bear in mind that before Hitler started killing the Jews, he had 275,000 handicapped people murdered.

No one has the right to decide that another human being is not fit to live. this is especially true since a doctor's diagnosis can prove incorrect. I have heard of more than one story where a mother was councelled to have an abortion to prevent the birth of an unhealthy child. Fortynately, the doctor's advise was ignored and a perfectly healthy baby was born.

A well known story is worth repeating here. A medical school professor gave his students a case study in whether or not to advise an abortion: The family is very poor, the husband is alcholic and has syphilis: one of their numerous children is mentally deficient, and there is a strong family history of deafness. The wife, who had tuberculosis, finds she is pregnant again. What should she do? A student quickly advised an abortion. Thankfully, two hundred years ago the woman did not have that option, and the world has been immeasurably enriched because of the child she bore, Ludwig van Beethoven.

[SonflowerGurl]

Based on the report above, I get the idea you think I'm defending abortion. That is not the case. Abortion is wrong, legally and illegally based on what I believe is in God's Word and I hope one day is repealled as a "choice".

What I am trying to do is understanding where thought pattern to the decision that was made three decades ago. I seriously doubt anyone, well any reasoning person, would advocate killing babies with no thought. The real issue is a heart issue that has to be addressed or those who are determined will have illegal abortions or go to a country that they can.

Do we have more abortions because they are easily available? Yes. Any children saved from this horrible blight on our society is worth the fight. But the real fight is not to have unwanted preganancies and when there is an unwanted preganancy to offer alternatives -- Christians need to be serious about adoption. And lastly, we have to as a culture instill values of life where the standard isn't about what's best for me but what best for everyone and honors God.

[clemsontigers23]

I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, just providing some facts for the discussion.

[SonflowerGurl]

Cool.

I know anytime you try to listen/understand an opposing view you can sometimes be misinterpted. I'm glad that isn't the case.

[Valpo]

Why?

Keyes is the only candidate that comes close to my beliefs.

the guy has no concept of gentlemanly debate. he flies off of the deep end

[Jason]

the guy has no concept of gentlemanly debate. he flies off of the deep end

Examples?

[Valpo]

Examples?

"Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Because Barack Obama has voted to behave in such a way that is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."

Who is Alan Keyes, who is anyone to say who Christ would vote for? Not that I agree with Obama much on politics, because I really don't, but I find him to be a good and decent man who has honest intentions and Keyes constantly attacked him and called into question his Christianity. That has no place in debate. Plus the 2000 Republican Primary debates with Keyes were hysterical. He's worried about and invokes the wrong things about politics. Abortion is a moral issue, not political. Whether or not this country continues to abort babies has nothing to do with out economy or foreign policy. Morally we ought to be against it and work for it to become obsolete, but to demonize others on account of that is short sighted at best.

[Yippy]

I doubt many women celebrate having an abortion. Needless to say, it is probably the most difficult decision any woman has to make.

I've known too many in my life who may not have "celebrated" having an abortion but certainly thought nothing of it. It was a minor inconvenience. Deciding what they should wear on a date was more difficult. Also, a lot of women (girls) have the decision made for them when they've become pregnant after "unprotected" sex. Long ago, before I knew that the abortion debate divided non-Christians & Christians, I was against abortion and voiced my opinion to some friends and nearly had my head bitten off. I was amazed at how violently some people responded when the idea of not having the option of an abortion was presented. Like a few of you have already said, it's the spirit of this age. My boss at the ceramic studio wholeheartedly supports Planned Parenthood & believes along with they that kids should have access to birth control because they're going to have sex anyway and abortion should be legal, because there are too many babies in the world as it is. Forget any personal responsibility. Personal responsibility & self-control are laughable. It's sad. And eventhough I agree that abortion is a spiritual issue, I think we should still voice why we're opposed to it.

Whether or not this country continues to abort babies has nothing to do with out economy or foreign policy.
Unfortunately, it does when my tax dollars fund abortions.

[Jason]

Spirit of the Age
Michael Card

I thought that I heard crying coming through my door.
Was it Rachel weeping for her sons who were no more?
Could it have been the babies crying for themselves,
Never understanding why they died for someone else?

The voices head of weeping and of wailing,
History speaks of it on every page.
Of innocent and helpless little babies,
Offerings to the spirit of the age.

No way of understanding this sad and painful sign.
Whenever Satan rears his head there comes a tragic time.
If he could crush the cradle, then that would stop the cross.
He knew that once the Light was born his every hope was lost!

Now every age had heard it, the voice that speaks from hell.
"Sacrifice your children and for you it will be well."
The subtle serpent's lying, his dark and ruthless rage.
Behold it is revealed to be the spirit of the age!

Soon all the ones who seemed to die for nothing
Will stand beside the Ancient of Days,
With joy we'll see that Infant from a manger
Come and crush the spirit of the age

[maui sista]

I'm just curioius.... and I don't know the answer. If a woman miscarries, yet the deceased fetus stays inside her... when the baby is removed from the uterus... is that considered an abortion?

What? No.
It's called a DNC and the fetus is going to come out ready or not.
They use the same method as abortion to remove the placinta.
You can die from a miscarriage if the doctor don't step in and help.(I almost did)

Sonja

[rossid]

D & C - dilation & curettage

[Jesuslove]

I've known too many in my life who may not have "celebrated" having an abortion but certainly thought nothing of it. It was a minor inconvenience. Deciding what they should wear on a date was more difficult. Also, a lot of women (girls) have the decision made for them when they've become pregnant after "unprotected" sex. Long ago, before I knew that the abortion debate divided non-Christians & Christians, I was against abortion and voiced my opinion to some friends and nearly had my head bitten off. I was amazed at how violently some people responded when the idea of not having the option of an abortion was presented. Like a few of you have already said, it's the spirit of this age. My boss at the ceramic studio wholeheartedly supports Planned Parenthood & believes along with they that kids should have access to birth control because they're going to have sex anyway and abortion should be legal, because there are too many babies in the world as it is. Forget any personal responsibility. Personal responsibility & self-control are laughable. It's sad. And eventhough I agree that abortion is a spiritual issue, I think we should still voice why we're opposed to it.


Unfortunately, it does when my tax dollars fund abortions.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think you can be pro-choice and Christian. I think women are very passionate about this issue, because it affects their bodies. If men were told to undergo a procedure to render them sterile at age 40, they would be angry too. Some feel "our bodies are our business".

While I wish there were never another abortion again, it is legal in America and we will continue to fund abortions. There are many things which I feel are immoral (including this war), which we fund, despite my desire not to fund it.

Last.... I just want to put this out there.... We currently have hundreds of thousands of children in America in foster care and/or available for adoption. We don't adequately take care of the children that exist. If abortion was illegal and another million unwanted children were brought into this world, who would care for them? Many Christians and conservatives complain about the welfare system. Well the welfare system would be expanded if there were another million unwanted children. And conservatives who favor small government and reduced taxation...well we'd be paying higher taxes to support these children.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support abortion, but I don't think the conservatives in this country don't have a plan should abortion once again be outlawed.

[Pouye]

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think you can be pro-choice and Christian. I think women are very passionate about this issue, because it affects their bodies. If men were told to undergo a procedure to render them sterile at age 40, they would be angry too. Some feel "our bodies are our business".

While I wish there were never another abortion again, it is legal in America and we will continue to fund abortions. There are many things which I feel are immoral (including this war), which we fund, despite my desire not to fund it.

Last.... I just want to put this out there.... We currently have hundreds of thousands of children in America in foster care and/or available for adoption. We don't adequately take care of the children that exist. If abortion was illegal and another million unwanted children were brought into this world, who would care for them? Many Christians and conservatives complain about the welfare system. Well the welfare system would be expanded if there were another million unwanted children. And conservatives who favor small government and reduced taxation...well we'd be paying higher taxes to support these children.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support abortion, but I don't think the conservatives in this country don't have a plan should abortion once again be outlawed.

Outlawing abortion wouldn't suddenly put millions of kids on welfare. There was a time when abortion wasn't legal in this country, and it wasn't a disaster. Legalizing abortion has simply made things more convenient for women. Less thought has to go into life choices because there is always that "out". Since over 90% of abortions are because of perceived social reasons, I believe that many of the children who would have been aborted would either be put up for adoption or cared for by the mother (and sometimes father). Lots of people take care of kids that they feel they really can't afford to take care of, but they manage to do it regardless.

Rock

[mat1583]

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think you can be pro-choice and Christian. I think women are very passionate about this issue, because it affects their bodies. If men were told to undergo a procedure to render them sterile at age 40, they would be angry too. Some feel "our bodies are our business".

How in the world is a vasectomy comparable to conceiving a human life? Our very own Declaration of Independence states,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If you believe a baby is a human life, then it was created with the unalienable right to live, and our founding fathers fought for exactly that!


While I wish there were never another abortion again, it is legal in America and we will continue to fund abortions. There are many things which I feel are immoral (including this war), which we fund, despite my desire not to fund it.

This is just another reason I really hope we get Ron Paul into office. By the way...you aren't exactly funding these things you don't like. The government is stealing your money using coercion and using it for purposes you do not approve. It is nothing less than stealing.


Last.... I just want to put this out there.... We currently have hundreds of thousands of children in America in foster care and/or available for adoption. We don't adequately take care of the children that exist. If abortion was illegal and another million unwanted children were brought into this world, who would care for them?


I have a question for you. How long did it take to adopt your child? I mean by the whole process from when your first started till the first day the child was in your care.

-washboard

[rossid]

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think you can be pro-choice and Christian.

Hopefully everyone realizes you can be whatever you want and Christian. That includes these things which I'm opposed to:

Abortion
Homosexuality
Euthanasia
Illegal immigration
Gun control
Taxes

Many have the opposite views on one or all of these things and believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour.

*remembers this thread is pro-life and stops typing*

[Jesuslove]

Outlawing abortion wouldn't suddenly put millions of kids on welfare. There was a time when abortion wasn't legal in this country, and it wasn't a disaster. Legalizing abortion has simply made things more convenient for women. Less thought has to go into life choices because there is always that "out". Since over 90% of abortions are because of perceived social reasons, I believe that many of the children who would have been aborted would either be put up for adoption or cared for by the mother (and sometimes father). Lots of people take care of kids that they feel they really can't afford to take care of, but they manage to do it regardless.

Rock

Yes, many would put their children up for adoption, but who would adopt them? There are nearly 200 thousand kids available for adoption now, with few people willing to step up and adopt them.

[Jesuslove]

I have a question for you. How long did it take to adopt your child? I mean by the whole process from when your first started till the first day the child was in your care.

-washboard

over 4 years. I had two failed adoptions before being successful. However long the wait, the end result is lifechanging for a child. My son was given up by his birthmother solely for economic reasons.