Motivation of Abortion Protesters

ossobuco-
Thank you. I was in the middle of reading that very article. It motivated my question.

That's a false analogy, and i'm not surprised that you don't see it. If you are opposed to shooting people down in the streets, you are not imposing a burden on those who are not shot down in the street. If you are opposed to abortion, you are imposing a burden on the women who would not be allowed to have an abortion. They would be responsible for feeding, clothing and housing the child for at least eighteen years. No such burden is imposed on people who are prevented from committing murder in the streets, nor on their potential victims. Nobody is talking about running out to serve food at a soup kitchen. The point is that many, and probably most, people who oppose abortion to such an extent that they go out to protest it appear to be singularly indifferent to the fates of the mother and child once the child is born.

Yes, your position is internally inconsistent. It does not take into account the difference in effect between those who are not murdered, and those who are prevented from having abortions.

This is a worldwide issue which is very complex and varies greatly in different areas of the world. I read in Central America if a woman is suspected of inducing abortion ( even if she fell accidentally ,etc.), if found guilty, can be incarcerated for 10-15 years. They are generally poor women. The wealthy can easily pay off a physician or travel abroad. I watched a documentary on infanticide ( girls only) in India and China. Women in so many places are considered less valuable to society. Before abortion became legal in the U.S. many women had abortions performed by unqualified people and died as a result of it. I lot of the burden of avoiding pregnancy in the first place is placed on women. Caring for the child is still predominantly the woman's responsibility. I would like to see more research invested in male hormonal contraceptives.

Setanta-
Would the Catholic Church be an exception? Does it (to some extent) take an interest in providing for the mother and the resulting child?

It's not inconsistent, because I did not say that murdering people in the streets and having an abortion are alike in all respects. What I said was that merely not liking murder doesn't imply that I am particularly charitable.

As for the rest of your argument, my response is that not wanting to spend years doing work for a child is not sufficient excuse to kill the child.

Agreed. Especially considering...

Women who obtain abortions represent every religious affiliation. 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians; while 22% of U.S. women are Catholic, 27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics.

Edit: While I do consider a fetus alive after a certain stage, the hypocracy of certain groups that protests sickens me.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html

I can tell you what I have seen/heard from people you describe. Personally, I am kind of on the fence about this. I wouldn't want an abortion personally because it is killing a living thing (whether you deem it a child or not). But that is my personal decision and it is difficult for me to force what is my moral beliefs on others.

Knowing this and knowing people who completely opposed to abortion. Why -- because they feel that at the moment of conception that the fetus is a baby/human. Now most reasonable people who be against killing a living human being so logical if you were to abort, you are murdering a helpless child. That is the reasoning. It would be no different than killing a baby that is already born. That is their moral belief.

And as far as whether such people are involved in helping living people in need. All the ones that I have personally met (via church and otherwise) do help in some capacity those in need either financially donating to groups that support single mothers or volunteer and through adoption.

One other thing I would like to add. I, personally, know some of these people. I've seen the signs they carry. Personally the signs sicken me and I feel there is a better way to approach -- obviously as the reactions you hear from both sides.

Anyone - I know this one particular man at this church. Nicest guy in the world. He would give anyone (no matter their beliefs) the shirt off his back. They were forming a protest -- not at a clinic -- just at some heavily traveled corner. He had a sign and was all smiles after church about protesting. Now granted they simply holds signs and do not go to clinics and try to terrorize people. But it does seems to me seeing the signs it is opposite of the type of person he is.

Him and his wife do help single mothers. He is really kind and compassionate. I don't agree with his tactics, but he would help anyone in need.

I think, maybe, there should be a little less judgement on both sides and maybe a little more understanding.

Well said Linkat, on both your posts. Thanks.

Nice evasion.

I haven't said that, but certainly any church can point to their charitable works (in the United States, the Catholics and the Lutherans are, in my experience in the charity industry, the most consistently charitable of the organized religions). Skeptics can also point to those same churches living, apparently indifferently, in the midst of desperate poverty. I don't see why you choose the Catholic church in particular. In Latin America, Catholic priests began what is called liberation theology, largely because of the crushing poverty of their congregations. They were not popular with the church hierarchy, however.

The doing of charitable works, or lack thereof, on the part of abortion protesters, should have no bearing on the veracity of their argument against abortion. I. for one, do not seek laws permitting or prohibiting. Rather, I seek a consensual definition of whether or not abortion is or is not a form of infanticide. If it is legal, then let it be legal. Then each may proceed according to conscience.

Setanta-
Thank you.

The reason I spoke of the Catholic Church in particular, is I thought it was better known than other religious organizations for opposing abortion and offering support to young pregnant women who agree not use abortion.

It is legal, and most attempts by the states to circumscribe abortion have been struck down in the courts.

I am surprised. My experience is that it is the members of fundamentalist or charismatic sects who actively protest abortion. (Keep in mind that abortion protesters is your stipulation.) Nor have i ever heard that the Catholics in particular, nor any denomination in general, offer special aid to women who agree not to have an abortion.

Have you ever heard of Catholic Charities...they have numerous programs in this regard.

Growing up (and still now) there is a home on my street dedicated to single moms and their children run by Catholic Charities.

I know there is also one that my former church was involved with -- the entire charity was to raise money and provide support for pregnant women who choose to have their baby. This includes after the baby is born. For some reason I can not remember the name of the charity.

I have no opposition to free will in these cases. I am not qualified to judge.

I have heard of and for years worked with Catholic Social Services, as well as Lutheran Social Services. No, i've not ever heard of Catholic Charities. Catholic Social Services provided aid to single mothers, but there was never any reference to abortion of which i was aware.

It is common practice for Catholic businesses to not offer medical insurance that covers contraceptives. Many medical practices affiliated with the Catholic Church don't provide services in reproductive endocrinology (such as in vitro fertilization ).

The numerous biased assumptions based on "what I have heard," or "what I have not heard," in this thread illustrate how the topic of abortion can rarely be discussed without people lining up on either side of political barricades.

Jack of Hearts provided an excellent answer that pointed out gollum's bias: Unborn babies are not to be considered among "the living."

People who come to the defense and aid of one particular group of the living are not somehow bound to do the same with all groups, and if they do not, it neither diminshes them or their cause.

Yes, it would admirable of those who protest against abortion to offer aide to unwed mothers and the infants they keep, and there is nothing in this thread that adequately supports the notions that they do or do not, but why are they morally required to?

If one's belief is that abortion is murder, one, obviously, doesn't believe there is even an amoral, let alone an equally moral choice to be made. For them, preventing a mother from aborting her unborn child is essentially the same as preventing one adult from murdering another. Since abortion is legal in this country and murder is not there is a clear legal distinction between the two, but since when does legal equal moral? Very few would suggest that if I prevented someone's murder I was therefore responsible for their welfare.

Abortion is such a difficult topic to discuss because the clearly convinced on either side have no tolerance for ambiguity.

For all the thought I've given this subject I still don't know where I come down on it, but I have certainly made up my mind that the vast majority of people who are against abortion are not engaged in a war on women or trying to confiscate women's reproductive organs and make them slaves to some Aged White Patriarchy.

While I sympathize with certain women who feel the need to have abortions and the notion that they must have some control over their own bodies, I despise the argument that a fetus is nothing more than a lump of human cells; a fatty tumor to be removed with little to no consideration.

I don't have much use for politicians who profess to be adamantly Pro-Life but who will compromise on abortion in the case of rape, not because of their compromise, but for the basis of it. Like most politicians they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

I can't imagine, in essence, forcing a woman who has been raped to bear the progeny of her rapist, even though I understand the child itself is innocent. There are times when a choice must be made between two victims, and in such a case I chose the woman.

I can imagine a family in which a foolish young teenager has found herself pregnant and the fear that her condition will "ruin" her life. Fortunately, such a situation didn't happen in my family, and I would like to believe that my wife an I would have inisted that my daughter bear the child and give it up for adoption, but I know it would never be so simple, and I might, very possibly, have advocated abortion.

At the same time with birth control pills and devices being as widely accessable as it is today, I am disgusted by the callous stupidity of women who have multiple abortions.

I am also disgusted by people who advocate the legality of late term abortions and partial birth abortions, and close their eyes and minds to doctors who kill babies that survive an abortion or who, like the monster Kermit Gosnell, run a butcher shop for profit.

In the end, the postions of the absolutely convinced on either side assure that this will remain a contentious subject for years to come, but I have to say that I have far less of a moral problem with the views of absolute Pro-Lifers than I do with their Pro-Choice counterparts.