In my opinion, this dinosaur is being tipped in the wrong direction. Click on headline below to read the story.
Obama lifts ban on federal money sent to int’l groups who provide abortion services.
a husband, dad, and follower of Jesus who is passionate about teaching and leading well. i love the church, urban culture and espresso. downtown phoenix arizona is my ‘hood. follow me
recent posts
Tags
@briankruck
abortion
american idol
bailout
bill hybels
congressional bailout
corporate bailout
craig groeschel
curiosity
daniel fast
eleven days
ethics
fasting
forgiveness
giving
God
God's voice
inauguration
jentezen franklin
Jesus
Jesus Christ
Leadership
leadership summit
lipstick and pigs
love
management
mccain
mcmanus
mesa campus
money
obama
offering
one
oneprayer
palin
parenting
phoenix
prayer
proverbs
serving
seth godin
simon
swerve
team
wall street
Hey- thought you were staying away from so called ‘controversial topics’
This isn’t surprising as since Reagan, Republicans stop the international money and the Democrats re-establish the money. NPR did a little piece on this yesterday. If you believe the pro abortion people they want to eliminate unwanted pregnancies prior to conception as well.
The issue hasn’t changed this tit for tat exchange won’t change until a common ground is found. I know the desire is for all or nothing but that is the sentiment on both sides.
THAT WAS FAST: Obama has granted an ethics waiver to Deputy Defense Secretary-designate William Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist who would have been precluded from serving in the administration by the new ethics regulations POTUS signed — yesterday.
Thurs – NO LOBBYISTS!
Friday – Well, unless we’re friends.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/
DinoTippers do not avoid controversy nor debates!
There is only one rule in Fight Club: There is no Fight Club!
I am opposed to abortion. I did vote for Obama dispite his policy in this area. I am disappointed…but I am not surprised. As Tibby alluded…this particular “Mexico City” issue has been a partisan tug of war for decades. I know Obama is going to continue to lead in the direction of revising more pro-choice law. Certainly most tax payers would bristle knowing that their tax dollars being used in this way. I do! Conversly…I am opposed to other ways billions of tax dollars are used to fund policy that I personally don’t support. (war in Iraq)
So…here are the struggles I have…In developing nations…where unwanted pregnancies are even more likely to be connected to women under age 20, extreme poverty, rape, incest, sex slave trade industry etc..what are the alternatives? Another HUGE impediment for Mexican Nationals, is that they are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic in pracitce are discouraged from preventing pregnancy!!! All forms of birth control (which is viewed as a sin…equal to ‘abortion’) is openly and stringently oppsed by ‘The Church’. On top of all of that…there is a lack of affordable or sufficient medical care for mom and baby.
Abortion, especially in developing nations…is a complicated mess; less likely to revolve around carelessness, ‘inconvenience’ or privillage. IN Mexico and other poor countries…the cycle of poverty and hopelessness…may lead women to believe it is truly the best option if it is made available…despite the emotional, physical and spiritual consequences.
What is the easy answer here? I submit there is none. We must find and present other viable options…so that new policy can be legislated.
Ad…hey you’re off topic…cough, cough.
This is the first step…next up is FOCA, which he’s promised to enact or whatever you call it.
I am opposed to the practice of abortion. However, things such as lifting this ban on international funding clinics and the eventual passing of FOCA are not surprising. In fact, in a legal sense these things are expected to happen. I can’t really fight the “Mexico City” and FOCA issues as long as Roe vs Wade says they are legal. We all know that fighting that supreme court ruling is near impossible. So we focus our efforts on fighting issues like the above mentioned. But again, it’s moot because of they do have their legal premise. My prayer is for clarity on the issue of ‘Life’ and what’s really at stake with abortion, regardless of any person’s faith. Because in this country we do honor life and if we can clear up the confusion on the science of the issue and determine that there is a baby’s life that is just as equal as you and I, then maybe there’s a chance to change Roe vs Wade. Otherwise, if we just rely on making sure we get politicians and judges that are on our side then it will forever be a ping-pong issue.
Joy, being a Roman Catholic is not an impediment, it’s a privilage. Also, we follow natural family planning. You can read about it at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/. We are NOT discouraged from preventing pregnancy.
I just started following Brians blog, and I look forward to future conversations, so I hope that us Catholics are welcome here. From what I’ve read thus far, this is a great blog.
God bless,
John
For those who support these international funds, what do you tell the people without jobs right now who need help here at home? I’m sure they’re great causes, but it is the job of the U.S. Gov’t to become the welfare state of the world?
john — thx for stopping by. We accept all types here…even Catholics!
John-I appologize for the frankness of my comment earlier in regards to birth control…it was a reaction to a conversation I had…with a friend who recently converted to Catholicism that now embraces a very different perspective on contraceptives than she previously held…she now passionately embraces the churches teaching against anything other than NFP. In our conversation…she equated birth-control to the act of seeking a medically induced abortion…which isn’t the standard perspective of many outside the Catholic community…I never meant to infer that Catholicism is an impediment but that maybe by limiting other forms of birthcontrol may add to the abortion crisis for many. I am submitting that the use of contraceptives may lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies…and thus…unnecessary abortions.
AD…Of course it isn’t the job of the US gov’t to be the welfare state of the world…it’s the global body of Christ’s…(the churches) job…We are blessed to bless…right? Instead of funding abortion…we could give towards prevention and care for moms and babies. Unfortunately, we could do better than we have been. We could give more money…more time…Given the overal condition of our country at this moment…this could be the finest hour for the church…especially the very RICH American Church! What an opportunity! links that might help direct those who are interested in making a difference in the fight against abortion….www.arizonarighttolife.org/ http://www.azliferally.com/azrtl/azliferally/
http://www.nrlc.org/ http://www.lifecall.org/cpc/az.html
It will not be easy for President B. Hussein Obama. More than half the country voted for him, and yet our newspapers are brimming with snippy remarks at every little aspect of his inauguration.
Here’s a small sampling of the churlishness in just The New York Times:
– The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza surrounding Barack Obama’s inauguration today.
– There is something to be said for some showiness in an inauguration. But one felt discomfited all the same.
– This is an inauguration, not a coronation.
– Is there a parallel between Mrs. Obama’s jewel-toned outfit and somebody else’s glass slippers? Why limousines and not shank’s mare?
It is still unclear whether we are supposed to shout “Whoopee!” or “Shame!” about the new elegance the Obamas are bringing to Washington.
Boy, talk about raining on somebody’s parade! These were not, of course, comments about the inauguration of the angel Obama; they are (slightly edited) comments about the inauguration of another historic president, Ronald Reagan, in January 1981.
Obama’s inaugural address tracked much of Reagan’s first inaugural address — minus the substance — the main difference being that Obama did not invoke God as stoutly or frequently, restricting his heavenly references to a few liberal focus-grouped phrases, such as “God-given” and “God’s grace.”
Obama was also not as fulsome in his praise of his predecessor as Reagan was. To appreciate how remarkable this is, recall that Reagan’s predecessor was Jimmy Carter.
Under Carter, more than 50 Americans were held hostage by a two-bit terrorist Iranian regime for 444 days — released the day of Reagan’s inauguration. Under Bush, there has not been another terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001.
But I gather that if Obama had uttered anything more than the briefest allusion to Bush, that would have provoked yet more booing from the Hope-and-Change crowd, which moments earlier had showered Bush with boos when he walked onto the stage. That must be the new tone we’ve been hearing so much about.
So maybe liberals can stop acting as if the entire nation could at last come together in a “unity of purpose” if only conservatives would stop fomenting “conflict and discord” — as Obama suggested in his inaugural address. We’re not the ones who booed a departing president.
It is a liberal trope to insult conservatives by asking them meaningless questions, such as the one repeatedly asked of Bush throughout his presidency about whether he had made any mistakes. All humans make mistakes — what is the point of that question other than to give insult?
When will the first reporter ask President Obama to admit that he has made mistakes? Try: Never.
No, that question will disappear for the next four years. It will be replaced by the new question for conservatives on every liberal’s lips these days: Do you want Obama to succeed as president?
Answer: Of course we do. We live here, too.
But merely to ask the question is to imply that the 60 million Americans who did not vote for Obama are being unpatriotic if they do not wholeheartedly endorse his liberal agenda.
I guess it depends on the meaning of “succeed.” If Obama “succeeds” in pushing through big-government, terrorist-appeasing policies, he will not have “succeeded” at being a good president. If we didn’t think conservative principles of small government and strong national defense weren’t better for the country, we wouldn’t be conservatives.
And why was that question never asked of liberals producing assassination books and movies about President Bush for the last eight years?
Say, did liberals want Pastor Rick Warren to succeed delivering a meaningful invocation at the inaugural?
The way I remember it, the Hope-and-Change crowd viciously denounced the Christian pastor, stamped their feet and demanded that Obama withdraw the invitation — all because Rick Warren agrees with Obama’s stated position on gay marriage, which also happens to be the position of a vast majority of Americans every time they have been allowed to vote on the matter.
Liberals always have to play the victim, acting as if they merely want to bring the nation together in hope and unity in the face of petulant, stick-in-the-mud conservatives. Meanwhile, they are the ones booing, heckling and publicly fantasizing about the assassination of those who disagree with them on policy matters.
Hope and unity, apparently, can only be achieved if conservatives would just go away — and perhaps have the decency to kill themselves.
Republicans are not the ones who need to be told that “the time has come to set aside childish things” — as Obama said of his own assumption of the presidency. Remember? We’re the ones who managed to gaze upon Carter at the conclusion of his abomination of a presidency without booing.
-Ann
Ann,
There is some level of truth to the political childishness that you point out, but much of what you say assumes the old viewpoint that Liberals are ‘this’ and Conservatives are ‘that’. That’s simply not what I observe as a registered independent. There were liberals that booed Bush last week but there were many liberals that saw that as tasteless. There were many conservatives that bought into the whole theory that Barack’s a secret muslim, but I know many other that realized that it was a silly theory. Continuing the ‘this’ and ‘that’ mentality is what allows EACH side to play some kind of victim game over time and cause people like me to remember why I register independent. Also, I would disagree with the assumption that Obama will not be questioned about any mistakes in his presidency down the road. Whether you voted for him or not, everybody understands that he’s a little ‘green’ and young. Many people voted for him despite those qualities. And he will make mistakes (everybody does) and the moment he does the media will discuss the youthfulness of our president and that we essentially allowed a guy in office that we should have expected to make some serious rookie mistakes. I would love to hear more of your insight, but I had to layout where I disagree with you.
But how about this abortion issue since that is what this post was about.
I would actually enjoy hearing your opinion about Barack’s abortion stance. The more ‘friendly’ discussion about this then the more educated we all will be 
Adrian, you can find all of Ann’s articles at http://www.anncoulter.com
Darn, not the real Ann Coulter. Well, not the real one visiting this site at least. Here I thought Kruck was getting famous
Great discussion on this always controversial issue, both sides have valid view points and i think we all agree that life must be valued. Let me then suggest this; abortion is a dinosaur that is not and very likely will not be tipped. That said why don’t we focus all the considerable energy being expended on this mainly moot point and turn it towards areas where we can truly tip the dinosaur; ie. our homeless, our children living in poverty, our sick and those with no money or insurance. There are countless other groups equally deserving of our outrage and angst. Let’s tip those dinosaurs people!
“But how about this abortion issue since that is what this post was about. I would actually enjoy hearing your opinion about Barack’s abortion stance. The more ‘friendly’ discussion about this then the more educated we all will be….”
All that off topic ranting could have all been boiled down to the above sentence. It’s bewildering that such a tirade by “Ann” surfaces on a blog where there has been very little extreme Liberal propoganda submitted by those that are of the Moderate or “Liberal” persuasion. Perhaps the others that visit Brians blog…who voted Obama like me, don’t fit that Liberal pigeon hole…just as I would surmise that those that voted McCain/Palin…aren’t necessarily militant Right -Wing fanatics? A good number of Republicans voted outside of their pary for the first time…not because they are Pro-choice…but…inspite of that..Why? For me it wasn’t an option to vote Republican because I always had…but this time…to wrestle with and dialogue about and pray thru my decision…
Republicans and Liberals alike exist in a wide spectrum of religious affiliations and social thought…not all Republicans are Ultra Conservative Evangelical Christians…and not all that voted Democratic are ‘haters’, athiestic, Commie/Socialists. To remove those assumptions upfront…would truly help move conversation in a more productive direction…
Well I was gona post under the name Al Franken and say wow Ann way off topic..but decided not to go that route.
I will simply share one story of a little boy I went to school with who was given up by his mother when he was a baby and was NEVER adopted. He went from foster home to foster home and in the 6th grade was beaten to death with a cat scratching pole by his foster father. Prior to that incident he was abused,forced to wear the most awful goodwill hand me downs etc. you get the picture. Just some food for thought regarding adoption and that it does not always happen….do I think his mother should have aborted him of course not…but we need to remember the kids that are lost in the system…the ones that are being abused…the ones that are poor and or hungry.
Joy, I appreciate your explanation and understand the frustration. It isn’t easy living as a Catholic, but I think we all know that nothing worth anything, in this world, comes easy. My wife converted to Catholicism, but she still has a few challenges with buying into the dogma completely. I disagree with her, but I love her and respect her to no end. I also will admit that I have my own challenges with some of the Church’s teachings, but I will continue to do my best to do God’s will and pray for forgiveness for any doubts that I have. One thing is for certain. Killing the innocent is wrong on any level, religious or not.
This past Sunday, Catholic churches across the nation started a postcard campaign to indicate our opposition to a more dire threat than the President’s recent actions. You may have heard of FOCA? The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is a radical bill. It creates a “fundamental right” to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. No governmental body at any level would be able to “deny or interfere with” this right, or to “discriminate” against the exercise of this right “in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” For the first time, abortion would become an entitlement the government must condone and promote.
FOCA is the most divisive and radical bill ever introduced in Congress. If you’re interested in taking action against this, please visit http://tinyurl.com/takefocaaction and send an email to your representatives.
God bless,
John
John, I appreciate in your response that you extend forgivesness towards me (I recieve it! thx) and your willingness to admit the challanges you encounter as a person of faith attempting to live within unique doctrinal perameters. It is tough. I am glad that God allows our questions and continues to love and persue us.
Also…I am particularly excited that you included a link to an organization that promotes taking action…I visited the web address and I am in full agreement. FOCA is a piece of legislation that is beyond what even many moderate and pro-choice people would feel is appropriate or tollerable as far as Abortion legislation goes…for lack of better terminology. Maybe FOCA is a dinosaur that will be tipped?
RE FOCA ..you can sign up on and state that you are against…
This isn’t pointed at anyone in particular, I have just been hearing the argument lately about “fighting battles we can win” instead of spending energy on things that are apparently out of our control.
First off, it’s kind of an ironic argument, because Obama himself has been talking to Americans saying “why fight only a few battles, when we can win them all?” Even Obama himself doesn’t believe in only fighting a few fronts because you know you can win those. We’re Americans and we can accomplish anything.
My second point is another one that feels somewhat ironic to me. The battle against abortion is lost and Roe vs. Wade will never be reversed. I understand RvsW will more than likely never be reversed but there are things we are able to do NOW to fight it.
For example, from what I’m reading about FOCA and the topic of this blog, what we’re looking at hundreds of thousands more abortions EACH YEAR because of these moves. FOCA alone will raise the number about 115,000 each year in our country.
And Obams made it perfectly clear that he would do these things when he took office. So it shouldn’t have caught anyone offguard.
Maybe I’m naive and not seeing the bigger picture as far as economy or whatever…but 115,000 less abortions a year seems like a way to help fight it. So when people say it’s impossible…I say a simple vote this past November would have prevented this. Maybe we can’t overturn it, but there are things that can be done to lessen it.
Now I understand that people wanted change and Obama represented that, so I can’t fault people for voting for him. I for one am excited to see what he can do four our country now that he’s in office.
But I disagree that we are unable to fight abortion. I think it’s just a matter of what is a priority.
Mike, you are absolutely correct. The candidates were transparent in what their stance was on abortion, and it played the largest part in my decision to vote against Obama for President. No other policy of any nation is more important than the position we take in respect for all innocent life.
Your comments parallel those from a recent article I read at http://tinyurl.com/dx9qdr.
Richard Doerflinger stated, “I don’t think pro-life Americans should despair and give up. Our situation is similar to what it was in 1993: the White House and both chambers of Congress basically against us on the abortion issue. Our opponents thought they would soon reverse the Hyde amendment against federal abortion funding, begin funding destructive human embryo research, and pass the Freedom of Choice Act. None of these things happened, and President Clinton’s repeated vetoes of a ban on partial-birth abortion only kept the horrors of abortion before the public’s eyes and increased pro-life sentiment. If we persevere, we will again show that the pro-life message is here to stay.”
Keep the faith,
John
Good points Mike. I would agree that in general we shouldn’t just admit defeats for certain battles because it’s not worth it. Thousands of lives is worth fighting for. I guess my problem is that the way it’s been fought with our current understanding of the issue will just be caught in this endless cycle of political ping-pong. Pro-lifers in power will pass pro-life laws in spite of Roe/Wade, pro-choicers in power will repeal those laws in the spirit of Roe/Wade. While this ping-pong is worth going through for saving the number of lives that Mike pointed out, I can’t help but feel that there might be more traction towards saving lives if made it a point to sort issues such as ‘viability’ and the lives of fetuses without demonizing pro-choicers for their decisions. When pro-choicers get nothing but hate from pro-lifers, why are they going to listen? The snarky use of ‘pro-abortion’ to describe pro-choicers contributes to that. Perhaps if we start listening to each other a little more we can explain why we would disagree with the idea that life starts at 27 weeks or the point of viability. Now this sounds like a more we-are-the-world approach to it but it’s still a valid way of handling it.
I would agree it’s not fought well…both sides are just so psycho about things that it ends up being “snarky” like you said.
I definitely agree that could be better.
Adrian, I don’t agree that ‘viability’ is a good argument. That brings into question those that survive on life support or other means that maintain a person’s viability. I think the argument has to be about when life begins and when should that person have civil rights. This really shouldn’t be a religious argument; rather, it should be considered a civil rights issue. Also, “pro-abortion” was the original term when the debate began over 36 years ago, but the “pro-abortion” people knew that this term wasn’t publicly friendly and began a PR campaign to soften the terminology. After some time, “Pro-choice” became the popular, more acceptable theme. If calling it pro-choice makes people feel better, then they can call it what they want. We all know and understand what the end result is of anyone that exercises that choice. No matter what you want to call it, it will be confrontational and there will be passion about it on both sides. Whoever has more resolve, more grace, more forgiveness, and understanding, will ultimately win this battle. I believe that the people that believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ will win and we will one day see a country (and maybe a world) that will have complete respect for all human life.
Robert George of Princeton University wrote, “And those of us who are Christians must, in obedience to the command of Christ himself, love our enemies. We must pray for those who have brought the abortion license upon our nation and for those who today protect and sustain it. We must also pray for those who perform and profit from the taking of human life. Our love for them must be godly and ungrudging. We must never give up on its power to transform.”…. http://tinyurl.com/dx9qdr
God bless & good night,
John
Mike and Adrian..I think you guys have some great points..and you present them in a wonderful loving “WWJD” fashion.
I think it all comes back to what are we doing as individuals…it all starts there.
I think another issue that surprises me that is never brought up as well is the whole invitro thing..noone seems to bat an eye at that..lots of embryos are discarded during that process…just some food for thought:)
I think some great ways we can try to help as individuals is sign petitions against such things as FOCA…give $ to Crisis Pregnancy…help a single mother in need…etc.
I knew Obama was gona do these things when he came into office…as far as the original argument am I thrilled about any of my tax dollars going towards any of these things..no not really…but I am not thrilled about tax dollars going towards war either…lol.(and I mean that)
I apologize and take back my comment regarding invitro…I dont want to offend of hurt the feelings of anyone who may have taken that route…that is not for me to judge or condem
Actually Melanie, invitro is a good point. Jina and I did it and were very strongly against leaving unused embryos in a freezer for the rest of our lives. We either wanted to use them all, or donate them to another family.
Luckily for us, we used them all. We didn’t end up with any left over. But you can donate unused ones like an adoption type thing to people who cannot afford the whole process but want to have a pregnancy.
Anyways, invitro is a weird thing, and I’m not even sure that everyone who does it fully understands what is going on with those leftover embryos.
As a Christian Wife, and the Mom of two Daughters, I’ve given this topic alot of thought. And although NFP may work for some, my cycles were NEVER regular-so that was NEVER an option-LOL. Kinda like fasting. So, does using birth control make me any less Christian? Does giving money to Planned Parenthood so they can educate other women who were in my shoes (single parent, going to school, etc.), make me less of a Christian? I advocate For birth control because I believe it REDUCES the number of abortions. I advocate for education for adolescents because I believe it REDUCES the number of sexually tranmitted diseases-some of which can kill you. I’m tired of Liberal being a ‘bad’ word. Once somebody uses that as part of their argument, they’ve already lost, as far as I’m concerned. If that’s what your argument is based on, it’s fear. And I’m not afraid. I have courage, and faith, and I will discuss what I believe with you without calling you names. Give me some meat to discuss. Abortions are up. STD’S are up. Teenage pregnancies are up. This forced silence is killing our kids-especially the poor ones. And some won’t know until they try to have families of their own. John McCain went to a dinner honoring a person who was friends with someone who had bombed a clinic. And others might call that domestic terrorrism… They threw a party. Could have been me, or one of my daughters, getting my physical, or birth control pills… Or a woman in the millitary… Just a thought.
Kate, I’m not sure if you’re asking me these questions directly or if they are rhetorical. If you’re asking me, I have no place to make a judgment on your decisions. Also, I wasn’t debating birth control nor will I. I was merely pointing out that the Catholic church has options for managing pregnancies. If NFP doesn’t work for you, then you have to make your own choices as to what is right. I would like to correct you on one thing though; abortions are not up. They have gone down during the last several years. The overall rate has declined; however, the rate of abortion has increased in the African American community.
If FOCA is enacted, abortions will skyrocket. I cannot and will not stand for my tax dollars supporting any such thing. As for the rest of your statements, I don’t know the facts behind all of them, but neither does the press.
God bless you and have a great weekend,
John
For anyone that is interested in the data on the rate of decline in abortion, you can visit http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/17/index.html.
“In 2005, the U.S. abortion rate declined to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44, continuing the downward trend that started after the abortion rate peaked at 29.3 in 1981, according to a new Guttmacher Institute census of U.S. abortion providers. The abortion rate is now at its lowest level since 1974. The number of abortions declined as well, to a total of 1.2 million in 2005, 25% below the all-time high of 1.6 million abortions in 1990.”
John, I don’t think we disagree on the issue of viability. I believe life begins at conception. My point is that viability IS a discussion because many people believe that 27 weeks or so is the magic number in terms of determining life. And although biblically I believe life begins at conception, we have to set bible reasons aside because we may be talking with non-Christ followers. I think there’s plenty of science to support our stance on life beginning at conception, perhaps even using your argument of viability / life support.
The last link you gave and all the data it represents actually clarifies my stance on the futility of relying on our nation’s political leader(s) to make game-changing laws that reduce abortions. The abortion rates were largely the same high rate during Reagan’s years, started to decline during H.W. Bush’s years, but there was a very dramatic reduction during the Clinton years, and a continuation of decline during W. Bush’s years. Although the article you link to highlights that the reduction rate slowed down during W. Bush’s years, I would say that considering we still have a growth in population then that rate of reduction is still an impact. My point is that all this goes against the initial belief that pro-iife president=abortions down and pro-choice president=abortions up. If anything, how about the scary statistic in the number of abortion-related deaths in the early part of the 20th century.
My issue is that although politics and laws have some bearing on the matter of abortion, there are factors that run much more deeply than that. Passing laws does not change the emotional dilemma that woman will face when they have an unexpected pregnancy. The high rate of abortions among low-income and poor women show a socio-economic reason for women choosing abortion. The high number of abortions from unmarried women and teens reflect a seemingly life-altering reason for these women to choose abortion. These reasons don’t justify abortions but they are the real-life scenarios women face and we cannot allow ourselves to think that legality of abortion is the Root of the problem. As Christ-followers we are in the perfect place to show that despite difficult circumstances God is control and will protect these women and their unborn children. We have the opportunity to show these women that being in a community of loving people and a loving God will help them handle their unexpected pregnancy. Sadly, this is difficult to imagine when some Christian’s exert so much energy to present an attitude of ‘hate’ towards people facing the abortion dilemma. And when these unexpected pregnancies are largely a result of some sinful act should we honestly expect them to feel safe approaching or trusting us? Again, this is less-structured and harder-to-fight approach to it. I WISH that the politics was the root of the problem and I would focus my energy there. But I fail to see that as the first effective approach.
Adrian…I apreciate you pointing out that unwanted/unplanned pregnancies for women who are under age or single…present real life delemmas and struggles…which may more often lead to abortion. I hate that abortion is an option at all…but I truly believe that the fear and hopelessness that many of these girls/women feel…lead them to believe there is no other choice…especially very young women and those who do not have a history of relying on God be present and trust worthy in their lives.
I would love to see more overt options for pregnant women contemplating abotion…(especially coming from faith communities)…to sustain women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, suport for those keeping their babies or adoption incentives…providing birth control, medical coverage and even interim housing and higher education for these women…to move them out of poverty.
I find it unacceptable for us to offer the ‘don’t have an abortion it’s wrong’ option…if there are no other reasonable and easily accessible options for women in these real life scenarios. I’d like to see the body of Christ do more than just be against abortion…Maybe that would look like everyone that is passionate about this huge issue….being willing to serve pregnant moms and their babies…to whatever extent necessary to prevent the ‘other option’ from becoming a reality.
We are not doing all we can…individually or collectively… We need to support organizations with our $$$ and our time…to reach more women.
Side note…I am uncomfortable setting viability @ or around 27 weeks…and here’s why…I have a niece who is now 8 and…she was born @ 23 wks and 4 days gestation. She came in @ 1lb 4 oz and 10″ long. She was born fighting for her life. We implored the OBGYN who was delivering to please intervene in every possible way… if she was born alive…She was in fact afforded life supporting measures(against advice from every Doctor) …If had she weighted a few GRAMS less…or been born under 23 weeks…no life sustaining measures would have been offered. Period. Today my niece is 8 years old and doing AMAZING with very little deficit. This certainly isn’t typical @ 23+ weeks…but it is becoming more and more common.