The Abortion Debate

The abortion debate has been in the headlines recently with the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision and President Barack Obama's decision to reverse the "Mexico City policy," which was a ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option. There are also questions regarding future openings on the U.S. Supreme Court and what justices would fill those seats.

Speaking in favor of Obama's action to reverse the "Mexico City policy," Tod Preston, a spokesman for Population Action International told the Associated Press: "Women's health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. President Obama's ations will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."

Criticizing the move, Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, told the Associated Press:
President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would suport policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control."

Note: Because the abortion debate is a volatile issue comments will be moderated on this thread and will be approved before publication in the comments section of this blog post. If you would like to make a comment please refer to our User Agreement and avoid inflaming other commentors or making personal attacks.

Comments

[student]

Where do you read "sand?"

[hard to port]

Go read it for yourself.

[student]

I am not asking where written. I am asking what is written.

Please help

[hard to port]

"Grasshopper", the answer is WRITTEN in the sand.

[student]

What does the “sand” say about common ground understanding to life, death, and abortion?

[hard to port]

The answer's written in the sand, "grasshopper".

[student]

What does the “sand ’grasshopper’” mean?

[hard to port]

The answer's written in the sand "grasshopper".

[student]

How does a “sand sculpture at Riverside Park” speak to the common ground understanding to life, death, and abortion?

[Cheryl Treece]

My husband suggests that for those of you who do not understand the term "common ground" to visit the sand sculpture at Riverside Park.

[student]

I did not know abstinence programs worked. Delightfully I am wrong.

Does privacy only protect a “person” and not a unique human life?

[Cheryl Treece]

For those of you who are interested in reducing the amount of abortions….

Last Monday I heard a woman talk on a Christian radio station about an abstinence program for teens that had a high rate of success. The program stresses such ideas as disease awareness, promoting self-worth, and conversations.

I see this as addressing not only abortion, but also a host of other problems facing our teens.

If you are interested visit: abstinence.net

[Cheryl Treece]

AND THERE IT IS!

It's all about condemning a woman for having an abortion.

No wonder Josh (and maybe student?) can't comprehend anything I've written for the last seven and half weeks.

[hard to port]

I have a question, are the woman and fetus in this discussion just abstract objects to be quibbled over for some political gain? Is there any plan to address the under lying social economic problems that contribute to these circumstances? Where is the man in all of this? Where is justice? Is this a legal problem or social issue? Does any one see a difference between society’s responsibilities and governments problems? If I get no response I will consider this just some sort of political vote getting discussion

[Cheryl]

I realize that it is nearly impossible to pass a law stating that abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother.
Finally, we’re making progress.
I just do not understand why a mother should have the legal authority to murder her own child.
And from March 26
I do not understand why and how it is right for a woman to have an abortion when it is wrong for a woman to kill her child after birth. I would love to hear a compelling argument as to why abortions are necessary outside of my example in the previous paragraph.
Ok, not so much.
* I would suggest you take a survey of women who have had an abortion and pose your question to them, and then I would like to know how many slaps in the face it would take you to realize “it’s none of your business”.
* Who are you the moral police trying to under-mind the law?
* For what purpose do you pose this question?
* I think this question does nothing but stroke your self-righteous indignation and feed your ego.

[student]

Can a legislature state “that abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother” in the same way laws prohibit homicide except in self defense?

[Josh Palmer]

I realize that it is nearly impossible to pass a law stating that abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother. I just do not understand why a mother should have the legal authority to murder her own child.

As for action, I vote for pro-life candidates, I donate to pro-life groups, and I argue for the rights of unborn babies. I am not a Congressman or Senator, so I cannot write a law, get it passed, and then signed by the President.

I do not understand why Cheryl will not state her position on abortion on the Abortion Debate page. If you have a solution please present it.

[student]

Should the new plan be a balance of the pregnant’s rights to the prenatal’s rights?

[Cheryl]

Josh, your opinion on abortion without action is worthless. Even if Josh has been engaging in a plan of action, I don't see how the plan has been working.

Abortion is still legal for the first three months of pregnancy and has been for 36 years.

All the abortion clinic bombings,abortion protest's including pictures of aborted fetus, signature campaigns printed in newspapers, billboards against abortion, election of pro-life supporters, and anything else I missed has not changed the law.

Josh,your no abortion unless the woman's life is in danger in all probability will never happen.

[student]

Would Mr. Palmer’s ideas fit in the new plan?

[Cheryl Treece]

Now for opinions on when abortion is justified.

Josh, Your opinion and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. I don't drink coffee so my opinion is worth $0.

[student]

What is the new plan?

[Cheryl Treece]

Pro-Life plan no work. Pro-Choice plan no work. Together make new plan. Me for new plan. No fighting.

[Josh Palmer]

After reading Ms. Treece's 3:34 PM post, I still have no idea when she thinks an abortion is justified and when it is not. How can two parties find common ground when one party does not specify where he/she stands?

I am certain that life begins at conception. I believe that the only time an abortion can be justified is when the mother and the child's lives are in jeopardy. I think it is better to lose just one life than to lose two.

I do not understand why and how it is right for a woman to have an abortion when it is wrong for a woman to kill her child after birth. I would love to hear a compelling argument as to why abortions are necessary outside of my example in the previous paragraph.

[hard to port]

From the historical choices of societies : Roman society where the father of the family held the power of life and death over all the members of his family, even married sons and daughters, wife slaves ect.; Russian Czar’s with surfs; The absolute sovereign right of kings; Military junta; Absolute dictatorship; Communist style one party system; European Aristocracy; India’s old cast system; the kind of Capitalism that spawned worker revolt and all sorts of socialism to name a few, which choice is better to try to find common ground and strive for equality under our form of society, or try out one the oldies?

[student]

Is equality of rights even a good thing for society to achieve?

[Cheryl Treece]

On one side, the Pro-life movement is all about the fetus, which they construe as a baby. I do not pretend to know when life begins, but I do know there is potential for life. Therefore, there is a valid concern by the Pro Life movement for the potential life.

On the other side, the Pro Choice movement is all about the woman and their Constitutional rights as an American citizen.

Put simply, I consider the potential for life and the rights of woman together as one issue. If you consider them separate issues, then that requires a winner and a loser.

Society failed to solve the abortion issue, the states turned the problem over to the Supreme Court because they were unwilling to address the problem, and the Supreme Court came up with a compromise. Now we are back to Society warring over the abortion issue.

I do not believe there is any law that can be passed that would deal equally with the woman and the fetus rights.

As a Society I do believe there is a “common ground” that both sides can agree, which could build on a positive solution on the abortion issue. Howbeit, each pregnancy is unique and subject to many variables, so a standard litmus test for abortion is not possible.

I believe both sides can work together to encourage an informed decision by the woman and recognizing that abortion will ever be present in society.

[Josh Palmer]

Cheryl mentioned that she considers both the woman and the fetus when it comes to abortion. I have to ask, what is taken into consideration? Is it the socio-economic status of the woman, birth defects, rape, incest, etc.? I ask these questions with all sincerity.

[hard to port]

A plural society such as ours has been for the last 233 years able to define common ground through tolerance, and respect of opinion of the constituent groups within the society, even though not always agreeing with the others opinion. Through tolerance and respect, which are the adhesive qualities that make our society coherent, that an understanding is engendered. Upon these characteristics is common ground found and thus society common good is greatly enhanced and we all move forward together.
Deviation from these time tested and honored principals lead to a path of polarization by special interest groups, having agendas that detract from the normal evolution of a healthy society. The divisive stratagems that claim the infallibility of the special interest groups are self-serving and self-deceiving. Dogma is of more import supported by self-serving demigods than Justice and Peace. Detection of such groups should be as evident as those in society “being as plane as the nose on a face”, but can only be view by the group in a mirror.

[student]

You did use the term “common ground” and then mentioned meeting in the middle. My fault in thinking you were using the concepts synonymously. Apparently precision in communication is important for you. I may not be able to maintain such precision.

Does “common ground” include Mr. Palmer’s idea that some abortions are acceptable while other abortions are not?

[Cheryl Treece]

I used the words "common ground" not middle ground. I said I was in the middle when it comes to the abortion issue. I consider both the woman and the fetus.

Common ground means things you have in common about a subject, you know, things on which you can agree.

I can tell by the tone of your post this is a conversation you will not engage.

Student doesn't even have an opinion, let alone have a conversation.

[Josh Palmer]

Student brings up a great point, what constitutes middle ground in the abortion debate? Is it certain abortions are allowed and others not? If so, then how do we determine which abortions are ok and which are not? The problem I have with that approach is some babies are considered more important than others. Are not all babies lives important regardless of the circumstances?

[Cheryl Treece]

And there it is... not one but seven "but why" questions.

Thank you for not disappointing.

It's been real.

When you get an opinion we'll talk.

[student]

How does the “good of both the woman and the fetus” flourish in the middle ground?

Does the woman get the abortion and fetus get to live?

Is middle ground a compromise or a win-win outcome?

You talk about being middle ground, but provide little definition of middle ground.

Without definition, middle ground sounds like a political promise.

With definition, middle ground could be a selling point.

Would you ask others to accept middle ground without defining middle ground?

[Cheryl Treece]

Absolutely Scott! I am surprised you lasted this long!

Now that you've blown my cover..... I admit I recognized student's naive and immature questions. A lot of them I just thought "huh". So I decided to use the questions to expound my opinions.

It was good therapy for me and I'm sure I made a lot of people angry.

After saying all this I wouldn't be surprised that student will still have a mindless question.

[Scott Mastrocinque]

Thank you Cheryl. Yes, you and I are very much in the middle. I for one, love conversation and discussion, but after reading an endless stream of student's trite and flippant comments, I thought the best response would be to fire some right back at student. He/she missed the irony and sarcasm. As a matter of principle, I tend to discount anything written which does not at all sound like what you would expect to come out of the persons mouth in normal speech. It's artificial and a waste of time for everybody concerned. Student just loves to ask one liners without any discussion whatsoever. Honestly, it reminds me of a three-year old constantly asking "But why?"

[Cheryl Treece]

I was going to thank Scott for his support, but then I reread his earlier posting and realized I have been supporting his thoughts. Either way, I am happy to have another middle roader with some common sense.

Now for students question……

In order to avoid an “all or nothing attitude approach”, should the anti abortion give up the unique human life argument?

Would you? Then we could all go home.

Ok, seriously, I don’t think you understand the concept of “common ground”. My fellow church members are not afraid to engage in a conversation with anyone about anything. Even though they don’t agree on every issue with the various church denominations in the community, they do find “common ground” to work together for the good of the community. (Obviously, I’m not talking about the Findlay community.)

When you talk about giving up something (unique human life argument), you have lost sight of the problem and “you” have become the problem.

The real problem is that the woman and the fetus cannot be separated. Put another way, Pro-life and Pro-choice cannot be separated, one affects the other. The “common ground” would be to have a conversation to determine how to work together for the good of both the woman and the fetus.

I will meet you in the middle when you are ready. (I think Scott would be in the middle waiting for you also.)

[student]

Ms. Treece seems to do just fine in maintaining the abortion/political distinction, rational/extremism views, and prior ideas.

Mr. Mastrocinque is welcome to try to out do Ms. Treece. No doubt Ms. Treece has already out done me.

In order to avoid the “all or nothing attitude” approach, should the anti abortion give up the unique human life argument?

[Scott Mastrocinque]

For student, what determines stupidity compared to being vexatious?

[Scott Mastrocinque]

Does student have anything worth writing or just enjoys yanking Cheryl Treece's chain?

[Scott Mastrocinque]

Is student always obnoxious here or elsewhere as well?

[Cheryl Treece]

You know, if the two sides to abortion would come together and find some common ground, I think they could come to a reasonable solution without government intervention. If each is determined to maintain this "all or nothing attitude", then the politicians will continue to use the abortion issue to get votes, anti-abortion or pro-choice.

I don't think FOCA is about abortion, it's just a political battle between anti-abortion and pro-choice. And I'm not much of a political activist, though I did wear a campaign button during the presidencial campaign.

[student]

Will FOCA be a bad abortion law change?

[Cheryl Treece]

Not on this blog, this blog is about abortion. There is no abortion law to improve.

[student]

No need to dwell on how laws could be improved?

[Cheryl Treece]

Congress is the legislation branch of the government. The Supreme Court made the final decision on Row vs Wade, which is the Judiciary branch of the government, the highest U.S. court. Congress can propose an amendment to the Constitution to reverse the Supreme Court decision. I believe the proposed amendment would be voted by the people requiring something like two thirds majority to become an amendment.

I don't dwell on could a, should a, would a, it's a waste of brain power.

[student]

Good to hear you enjoy voicing your opinion. Equally good to read your opinions.

The assumption is that those who wanted 1) abortions (available) and 2) to provide abortions were part of the consensus that promoted abortion(availability) law.

Would abortion be better decided in the legislator or Congress?

[Cheryl Treece]

Nice spin but that's not what I said.

By the way, what consensus of society produced the abortion law? As I recall the states had the power to make individual abortion laws, but they turned it over to the Federal Government, because they didn't want to deal with the abortion issue. The only people who voted were the Supreme Court members.

I don't see anyone's mind being changed on this abortion debate blog from one side to the other. Thus I don't see a consensus happening any time soon.

I do enjoy voicing my opinion though.

[student]

Opinion should not be allowed to influence future law?

[Cheryl Treece]

Makes no difference, the deciding factor is the law. Right now the law says that abortion is legal during the first three months of pregnancy. How they came to this conclusion, I don't know.

All these postings on this blog on abortion are just opinions.