God's grace on display for the seemingly "unforgivable"

Change takes time Bean. Right now the prevailing attitude is that human life within the womb is not created equal with all other human life. That misconception can only be remedied through education. It will literally take amending the Constitution to protect that life and the only way possible to achieve the 75% approval that such an amendment would need in order to become a part of the Constitution is through education. Even if a future SCOTUS decision would overturn Roe, all that would accomplish is a return to allowing the states to decided the question individually, which won't solve the problem. SCOTUS isn't ever going to venture into proclaiming that abortion on demand violates the right to life that is endowed at creation, we both know that. We also know that even a constitutional amendment declaring human life within the womb is endowed with that right won't stop that right from being violated anymore than the laws against murder stop people from being murdered.

What we can do is educate people such that they come to the reasoned conclusion that elective surgery for the purpose of post-conception birth control violates the fundamental truth that it is the creation of human life that endows that life with its inalienable rights and that all life is created equal. That is the only means of preventing the destruction of human life within the womb, the individual person involved must reach the point where they are convinced that this human life has the same rights as they themselves have to to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

PrintSmith wrote: Change takes time Bean. Right now the prevailing attitude is that human life within the womb is not created equal with all other human life. That misconception can only be remedied through education. It will literally take amending the Constitution to protect that life and the only way possible to achieve the 75% approval that such an amendment would need in order to become a part of the Constitution is through education. Even if a future SCOTUS decision would overturn Roe, all that would accomplish is a return to allowing the states to decided the question individually, which won't solve the problem. SCOTUS isn't ever going to venture into proclaiming that abortion on demand violates the right to life that is endowed at creation, we both know that. We also know that even a constitutional amendment declaring human life within the womb is endowed with that right won't stop that right from being violated anymore than the laws against murder stop people from being murdered.

What we can do is educate people such that they come to the reasoned conclusion that elective surgery for the purpose of post-conception birth control violates the fundamental truth that it is the creation of human life that endows that life with its inalienable rights and that all life is created equal. That is the only means of preventing the destruction of human life within the womb, the individual person involved must reach the point where they are convinced that this human life has the same rights as they themselves have to to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree with almost everything here except I don't think it's even necessary to think in terms of "rights", it's only necessary to think in terms of "what is human life?. Once you come to an acceptance that that "clump of cells" is indeed human life it is very difficult to argue that it is okay to kill it other than to save your own life.

The question is, how to get people to come to that acceptance that a fetus is human life? There are many people who prefer not to think of it that way because it suits them not to. And the "abortion industry" unfortunately has played into that desire to not think of the unborn as human life by imagining there is some "right" to go along with the fantasy that what is happening is not the destruction of a human life.

I understand perfectly why many who have been invovled in having an abortion or wish to keep that "option" open for themselves become uncomfortable when others insist that human life begins at conception. But the fact that it makes them uncomfortable does not make it any less true.

I certainly do agree with you, PS, that once a person has made the moral epiphany that abortion takes a human life, it would not really matter what laws allowed or didn't allow in the way of abortion. There are many things that are legal but still immoral. If the majority saw abortion as morally wrong, the number of abortions would fall tremendously no matter what the law said about it.

Science Chic, you have just given us the logic that we need to repeal the laws against murder. We will just look at who's committing murder, and why, and tailor the efforts to reduce murder based on those reasons and there will be greater success than in attacking secondary programs like prison and execution.

Problem solved! We can now do away with all laws concerning murder, stealing, etc. Fantastic!

Illogical thinking, don't you reckon?

major bean wrote: Illogical thinking, don't you reckon?

Yes, your thinking is incredibly illogical. The fact that other measures besides legal ones work to reduce murder neither negates their importance nor provides an argument for legalizing murder.

If it would work to prevent the murder of babies, it will work to prevent ALL murders. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
The logic is perfect. The premise is faulty.

Murder cannot be stopped by feelgood deeds. And stopping half the murders does not make the murder a wonderful event.

It is helpful to have current statistics in addition to data from the 90s. Current data shows out-of-wedlock births is very much on the rise.

Key findings

Data from the Natality Data Sets, National Vital Statistics System (NVSS)

* Childbearing by unmarried women has resumed a steep climb since 2002.
* Births to unmarried women totaled 1,714,643 in 2007, 26% more than in 2002. Nearly 4 in 10 U.S. births were to unmarried women in 2007.

There are many more bullet points in the reference:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.htm

major bean wrote: If it would work to prevent the murder of babies, it will work to prevent ALL murders. If A=B and B=C, then A=C.
The logic is perfect. The premise is faulty.

The logic of If A=B and B=C, then A=C is indeed flawless.

However, the "logic" of your attack on SCs point, if we can call it logic, does not follow that model or even vaguely resemble it.

Science Chic wrote: Here's the CDC's report documenting 1940-1995 rates and demographics (out of wedlock birth rates have actually been climbing since 1940, not just 1960). The biggest age group having out of wedlock kids isn't teenagers, with their sex education, it's 18-29 year olds. If you want to figure out how to drastically reduce abortion rates in those groups, stop blaming sex ed and start supporting programs that target that demographic. Easier access to contraception, promoting contraceptive use, more support for pregnant women to keep their jobs or stay in school during gestation and immediately after giving birth, and improving adoption bureaucracy should help a lot. Look at who's having them, and why, and tailor the efforts to reduce them based on those reasons and there will be greater success than in attacking secondary programs like welfare or in limiting Planned Parenthood's other efforts to promote responsible choices like birth control.

What I believe you to be overlooking here SC is that it is precisely that age demographic who is putting into practice what they have been taught for the first time outside of the controlled environment of their earlier years. This is the age demographic where children leave the nest, where the misinformation they receive earlier in life is liable to result in the greatest consequences in this arena. A 16 year old still living with her parents realistically has fewer options than a 20 year old residing outside of the home while attending college.

If we give more support to stay in school, or keep the job, then by default we are not teaching them to think ahead and reach a reasoned decision regarding their conduct and the potential consequences of that decision, we are instead telling them that they don't need to think it through and come to a reasoned decision before acting. We are being reactive rather than proactive at that point and actually providing an incentive to indulge their feelings and desires without first making a reasoned and informed decision to do so. Isn't that the type of thinking that led many to purchase a home they could not afford and for businesses to engage in behavior for profit regardless of risk? When CS and I were shopping for a home, we were told that we could afford to purchase a home that was $100K in price higher than the range we were shopping in. We both would have loved to have a house that was that much grander than the one we purchased, wouldn't everyone? What kept us from indulging that desire was the reasoned decision we came to before we started shopping for a home about how much home we could afford if our situation changed for the worse instead of staying the same or continuing to get better. We can't, as a society, continue saying to people that we will be bailing them out of their poor decisions by reducing or eliminating the negative consequences that stem from acting before reasoning and then expect that they will reason before acting.

With regards to Planned Parenthood, I think their promotion of responsible birth control is exemplary, it is their promotion of irresponsible post-conception birth control that I take issue with. If they wish to continue to receive funding for the former via tax dollars, I think it reasonable to require them to abandon the latter in the same clinic. I see no good resulting from reducing the costs associated with providing abortion services that accompanies the ability to share costs of running and staffing a clinic that provides both desirable and undesirable services; of having the same doctor examine and counsel someone in the area of responsible birth control at his 11 o'clock appointment and then perform an elective surgery to effect post-conception birth control at his 11:20 appointment. If their objective is to provide both, then I am sure that there are enough private individuals who agree with that mission that are willing to provide the funds necessary to replace that which is currently provided by the federal government and who feel it necessary to allow Planned Parenthood to continue to operate in the same manner. If not, then Planned Parenthood has a choice to make.

The federal government does have the authority to place restrictions on the money it contributes that comes from the taxes we pay. They withhold funds for highways in the absence of a 0.08 BAC, the lack of a primary seat belt law and speed limits above a certain figure. They withhold education funds under certain conditions, Medicaid funds when certain conditions are not met and many others. The removal of the abortion service from the same clinic that provides responsible contraceptive counseling and services is not an unreasonable request in exchange for taxpayers subsidizing those services.

Abortionists are racist. They kill more black people every year than the 7 leading causes of death combined. How long till Jesse Jackson finds the angle and sues??? :pop