Sad indeed. I am a Placental pathology fellow at UCSD and see the results of abortions too often. I never get used to seeing a fetus come thru that should still be alive. Some say that a fetus is not yet completely a human, but I felt no difference when I mourned my wife’s miscarriage a few years ago. The elective D&C’s in later term pregnancies really are horrible to see the results of as the baby literally comes in fragments.
It raises my eyebrows then when I see my war-supporting brothers and sisters. They rightly are outraged by abortion, but are very passive when it is a military doing the killing. I am also puzzled by my democratic brothers and sisters who are horrified by war (sometimes) and yet care nothing for the fetus. We live in a twisted world my friend.

A very good posting Connor. Abortion is the greatest “black mark” on this nation, especially when you consider that 95% of them could and should have been unnecessary in the first place. It is hard to change peoples outlook on this tragedy. It is harder to change what is in the heart.

How sad. God must weep at the destructive, murderous inclinations of some of his children.

I’m sorry, but to me, these comments sound really, really judgmental.

Let me say that I believe that abortion is immoral. I’m not advocating it in the least. But many, many people do not share my perceptions of when human life begins, so we’re not going to place abortion on the same place on the morality scale. While I may not agree with how they view abortion, I don’t think it’s right to classify them as having “destructive, murderous inclinations.”

Since we know that abortions do terminate life, how is it judgemental to refer to those who have abortions as having murderous and destructive inclinations? Regardless of how they have talked themselves into it, they are still murdering an innocent child to escape consequences of not practicing responsible sexual relations.

The term “murderous and destructive inclinations” seems to describe people’s motivation to abort a baby. We’re saying that they’re making a moral decision not different than your average murderer.

The problem is that for people with different values, murder and abortion are going to weigh in at different relative positions on the moral compass than they would for your typical Latter-day Saint.

On the Latter-day Saint moral compass, abortion and murder are probably going to weigh in very close to one another. Within our system of values, abortion constitutes the termination of a human life every bit as valid as a person that has been born.

But for people outside the Church, who don’t share the values, world view, upbringing, truth, or whatever that Latter-day Saints generally have, abortion and murder may constitute very, very different decisions. Murder may be undeniably immoral, but on their moral compass, abortion arguably constitutes a different kind of decision without the same moral implications and repercussions.

While you may not agree with the values behind their personal moral compasses, it’s not fair to say that they are motivated by the same type of inclinations that would motivate run-of-the-mill murder.

You want murderous intentions?

The new law in Nicaragua does not allow any provision for abortion even if the mother dies. Think about that. Things can go wrong with pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancy? Rape or incest? The only option will be to get an illegal abortion. Is that the kind of choice you’d like to have to face with your wife?

Even worse, abortion bans have no effect on the number of abortions performed. Brazil, where abortion is illegal, has a high abortion rate — almost a third of pregnancies end in abortion. In Scandinavian countries, abortion is legal and free, but they have some of the lowest abortion rates in the world. This is probably because of widespread sex education and availability of contraception. If we really wanted to reduce the number of abortions (which I would love to have happen), we’d be doing more in those areas.

Abortion bans make absolutely no sense if you want to stop abortion. They do, however, make a lot of sense if you want to punish women who make sexual choices you don’t like, which is a theme I’ve noticed from Connor’s posts on the subject (e.g.).

And why is all this being done? Because of the supposed objections of a hypothetical deity, and unverifiable ideas about ‘ensoulment’. That’s not good enough to cause the death of one more living woman.

I spoke to a psychologist once who has done a lot work in state prisons, and she said that most convicted killers don’t see their actions as murder. Does that mean we are being judgemental by labeling and sentencing them as murderers? On their “moral compass” murder isn’t at the top. So am I being judgemental is saying they are murderers?

It’s a shame that a country would ban all abortions, refusing to recognize exceptional situations (rape, incest, a threat to the life of the mother) where elective abortions ought to be permitted.

Is it possible that the few deaths due to pregnancies and mothers having to carry babies from incest and rape full-term could be considered a worthy sacrifice for the millions of lives that would be saved?

I’m not advocating it. Just throwing it out there for discussion.

Murder is almost universally accepted as immoral, and those few who do not view it as such are probably deluded, or perhaps even psychotic.

The morality of abortion, on the other hand, is subject to debate. It is not universally viewed as immoral. That is, intelligent, rational, sane people aren’t necessarily deceiving or deluding themselves if they make the decision to have an abortion, nor are they making the same kind of moral decision as one who chooses to rape or murder another human being.

BTW, I like Fontor’s suggestion that we approach sexuality in the same way as many European countries. Safe, legal abortion, mature and frank sex education, and wide availability of contraception. On average, Europeans start having sex at a later age, there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, and STDs are less rampant than in the States.

I taught for years in Catholic Schools, during the beginning of Pope John Paul II’s reign. He was a great advocate for the unborn, and he defined, simply, the church’s teaching on abortion. “No Catholic at anytime, under any circumstances, can undergo, participate in, nor assisit in any way, an aborition”. HIs stance on even assisting in aborition helped Catjholic healthcare workers to legally avoid assiting in aborition.

Although it’s easy to come up with excuses for abortion, there is no getting around the fact it does, indeed, terminate life. Also, if life is sacred, as we are taught it is, then why are so many people opposed to abortion also advocate for the death penalty?

Although it’s easy to come up with excuses for abortion, there is no getting around the fact it does, indeed, terminate life.

Is anybody here disputing that?

The term “exceptional circumstances” was used here, and that is a term often associated with justifying abortion. And how many times does an OB/GYN physician see a patient whose pregnancy is actually lifethreatening? I was told by one MD, “never”.

As for rape, I was told that, too, is rare due to the trauma and tearing of the vaginal wall. Incest, however, does happen. But is one sin lessened by committing another?

Incest, however, does happen. But is one sin lessened by committing another?

What!? Even the Church allows for abortion in pregnancies resulting from incest. To call abortion under such circumstances a “sin” is totally inhumane and unempathetic.