« Children Treated as Property | Main | Making an Impact Without Knowing Very Much »

July 28, 2007

Comments

I believe we should always remember that our primary message should be regarding evangelism. We should always discuss God's law and His grace before abortion, homosexuality, and any other type of secondary discussion.

A FEW MONTHS AGO, WHILE PLAYING CARDS WITH A GROUP, A WOMAN ASKED MY OPINION ON ABORTION. I HAD TO REPLY THAT I WAS NOT FULLY FOR OR AGAINST. THAT IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. I TOLD HER ABOUT A YOUNG 21 YEAR OLD WOMAN I KNOW WHO FREELY ADMITTED THAT SHE HAD 6 ABORTIONS. SHE USED ABORTION AS HER PREFERRED BIRTH CONTROL METHOD.
THE WOMAN AFREED THAT THAT WAS RIGHT, BU ASKED IF I DIDN'T THINK WOMEN HAD THE RIGHT OF CHOICE. I ASKED HER IF WOMEN HAD THE RIGHT OF CHOICE, WHY AREN'T THE SAME RIGHT OF CHOICE GIVEN TO THE MEN??
I TOLD HER OF A YOUNG HIGH SCHOOL MAN WHOSE FIRL FRIND GOT PREGNANT.
HE ASKED HER TO MARRY HIM. SHE SAID NO, SHE DIDN'T WANT TO MARRY HIM.
HE ASKED HER ABOUT AN ABORTION. SHE SAID NO WAY.
HE ASKED IF SHE WAS GOING TO GIVE THE BABY FOR ADOPTION TO A LOVING FAMILY. SHE SAID NO, SHE INTENDED TO KEEP THE BABY.
SHE HAD TWINS!!
AFTER THE BIRTH, SHE SUED THE EX BOY FRIND FOR CHILD SUPPORT. HE HAD TO DROP OUT OF SCHOOL, GET 2 LOW PAYING JOBS TO PAY THE CHILD SUPPORT, GIVE UP HIS PLANS FOR COLLEGE, GIVE UP HIS VIRTUAL FUTURE, AND PAY HER FOR THESE BABYS FOR 2YEARS BECAUSE OF HER CHOICES. HE DIDN'T GET ANY CHOICES.

THE WOMAN TOLD ME "THATS WHAT HE GETS FOR NOT KEEPING IT IN HIS PANTS!"

SHE HAD NO ANSWER WHEN I ASKED HER WHY SHE WASN'T SAYING "THAT WHAT SHE GETS FOR NOT KEEPING IT IN HER PANTS!" IT TOOK BOTH OF THEM TO MAKE THE BABY.

IT IS NOT ALWAYS THE MALE THAT IS THE SEDUCER OR INSTIGATOR OF SEX. HE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOICE IF SHE HAS IT.

I AM NOT FOR, OR AGAINST ABORTION, BUT I DISLIKE ONE SIDED ARGUMENTS. IT DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. I CANNOT AGREE THAT A WOMAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ABORTION, JUST TO PREVENT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A 9 MONTH PREGNANCY, WHEN THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF COUPLES WHO WOULD LOVE TO TAKE THE BABY. IT JUST DOESNT MAKE SENSE..

Here is something I read on abortion today, it made me cringe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010696/site/newsweek/

Why does it always seem to be an abortion vs "keep an unwanted child" choice? Why do pro-choicers rarely include adoption in their arguments?

"The great thing about video is that you can see the mental wheels turning as these people realize that they somehow have overlooked something central while they were slinging certainties. Nearly 20 years ago, in a presidential debate, George Bush the elder was asked this very question, whether in making abortion illegal he would punish the woman who had one. "I haven't sorted out the penalties," he said lamely. Neither, it turns out, has anyone else. But there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can't countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can't have it both ways."

Hi Mo, go read the column and remember where you heard it first. Criminalizing abortion prior to a certain point in the pregnancy can only be accomplished by changing the status of women

An I still don't get it. The article Steve blogged on was about the possibilities of reducing abortion by tweaking social policies, often in a way that would improve the lives of everyone. That concept seems to be beyond the grasp of most everyone here. Is reducing women to property and throwing folks in jail all that attractive?

The comments to this entry are closed.