Pops,

I like your response to Senator Stabenow's comment. May I paraphrase what you've written here and write her back?

About post-abortion syndrome, yes, the stories are remarkably the same among many women. Some women, will, however, speak up as if they are proud of their choice to abort. This doesn't contradict the immorality of abortion any more than the callous, unrepentant reactions of a serial killer or child sex offender suggests he did not commit an unjust or immoral act. What is important to note is the pattern of moral conversions that one sees over time in post-abortive men and women. As one's conscience ripens, the reality sets in, then waves of grief come. The pattern of conversions from wanting to abort to changing their minds as a result of seeing their baby on an ultrasound also speaks to the moral code. The more reality one sees, the more maturity one gains, the clearer becomes the sin.

In my research on this topic, including clinical work with post-abortive women, I see these three things as overlapping, related determinants of abortion:

-- Ignorance,

-- Immaturity (as in narcissistic lack of empathy for the baby and lack of sense of self),

-- Arrogance. Arrogance is the hardest to overcome.

More later, but wanted to include this from the 180 documentary site.


Story Just in from Lisa M. Bortman Walline: "Here goes... In 1984 I killed my unborn child, I did so again several years later. You, who have never made this choice, will never know the pain, emptiness, and self loathing that results from this act of murder. I place before the public my sin. What Planned Parent Hood does not tell you when you sign on the bottom line is this....You are one of many, we don't give (care) about your emotional well being. We do care if you have the funds. Line up, put on your gown, oh and if you want to be unconscious that will be extra. You are taken in a room mildly sedated or fully sedated, they painfully dilate you place an instrument inside your body and savagely extricate your unborn child. Upon rousing from anesthesia or sedatives they hurriedly ask you to leave. Every woman I encountered was speechless, and morose."

Shasha,

Certainly, feel free to use anything I’ve written.

Wrt to your statement * “The more reality one sees, the more maturity one gains, the clearer becomes the sin”.*

Yes. Truth is in reality. Sin is in illusion. The devil is a deceiver, an illusionist, a twister, a perverter, a veiler of truth. So in a sense, the more one becomes aware of reality the more one can see God. Jesus came to bring us truth, indeed is the truth, and sent us the Spirit of truth.

God desires our being responsible people, mature lovers of each other, of self (in true humility) and of Him. He does not allow us to hide from the reality of our power (free will) and our responsible use of that power.

American society has immaturely become an ostrich yard, wherein its citizens increasingly deny the truth, endeavor even to legislate away and redefine truth / reality (examples: life in utero and marriage as between man & woman) and bury their heads in polemic sand while it acts out atrocities!

More and more, society moves to create its own utopian hell, in denial of and/or oblivious to reality – the reality that our creator designed and instructed us about via his Divine Revelation.

I realize that you have far more experience, being a clinical professional, and that the following could be a subset of ‘immaturity’, but there are two other thoughts that come to my mind:

1. Moral cowardice. (Refusal to bear the consequence of one’s actions.)
2. External pressure from the male – possibly an abusive male.

Irresponsibility came to my mind first, but I see it could fall readily under immaturity, whereas moral cowardice (to me) is a different issue than is immaturity.

As for ignorance – I defer to you, but truthfully I am a bit outchy about that because of my having a hard time accepting the golden rule / natural law enabling true ignorance and also because if that is not the case then true ignorance would not (to my way of thinking) carry with it the attendant guilt that generates depression etc. Post-abortive depression is an effect of guilt, the fruit of sin. This is what perhaps St. Paul really meant (as opposed to what I had manhandled for my own ends in that earlier post of mine) when he said ‘Sin gets its power from the law’.

Good luck with the writing of your testimony.

Pop-pop.

quote:

Shasha, I commend you on initiating this thread and in being active with your Senator. And in trying to affect the thought of other Christian women who are ‘pro-choice’. In a very real way the battle takes place in the arena of America’s women.

Great exchange, Pop and Shasha.

Re. the above, Pop, it's much broader than America's women, as pro-choice legislation is widespread in Europe and Asia as well. It's also equally a male problem, imo, for many reasons, none the least of which is that it "takes two to tango" in the first place and so the one who is aborted is every bit as much the man's child as the woman's.

Phil,

Thanks! Glad you liked our exchanges.

imo, I don’t think it’s ‘equally’ a male problem though, as you maintain. Certainly, both male and female share the responsibility of the conception via their participation in a ‘two to tango’ way (as you point out). Yet, ultimately the female goes it alone as only she climbs upon the operating table. In the final analysis that decision becomes hers (with the exception of situations where fear of an abusive and coercive male enters the equation – not the case for the vast majority of abortions, I wouldn’t think). God permits no one to be tested beyond their strength, and free will is always operative to some degree (sans demonic possession). The buck stops with the woman really; certainly it can stop with the woman.

I don’t say all this in a desire to cast some fullness of blame on the woman, but to focus the reality of empowerment and truth in a ‘before-the-fact’ sense. Blame is an after-the-fact issue. Women can – and should – reject all arguments and temptations regarding aborting another’s (their very own other’s) life. As you pointed out in your debate that Shasha provided the link for, the woman carries the brunt of post-partem guilt and depression. While some men may have guilt related issues, I doubt there is any ‘equally’ equivalent number of men who suffer these consequences, nor suffer them as deeply.

All,

God’s love is for the aborter and the abortee. He desires neither of them wounded by this truly serious sin. And He hates (in a millstoney way) false teaching in abortion-rights regards!

NOW’s focus is on promoting the actions of women to abort, not on convincing men really -- in any ‘two-to-tango’ sense. They claim to be advocates of women’s ‘health’, when in fact they are advocates for women’s amorality. The dictionary (Funk & Wagnalls was the nearest at hand) defines health as: ‘freedom from defect or disease’. Since when is a gestation a disease? Since when is a gestating human baby a defect? How can NOW correctly portray all this as protecting health? Nonsense.

They (NOW) consider themselves as champions for women, when in fact they are champions for the demonic. (The demonic angels in their pride consider humans are defects. They resented God’s plans for mankind and the role angels would play in interacting with mankind in accord with God’s plan.)

They (NOW) claim to be concerned for a woman’s body, when in fact their concern, their focus -- is on the elimination of the growing baby’s body.

With every abortion, a growing baby’s body goes in the dumpster. There’s no getting around that. Pro-choice Christianity is a contradiction in terms. God is love, and so loved the world that He gave His only Son that man might have eternal life – not less than nine months worth! ………….. Make sense?

My 10-year-old son saw me writing on the computer and asked me what I was writing about. I told him "abortion." He said, "It's wrong and any woman who does that is wrong, so what else is there to talk about?!" His 12 year old friend said to me, "When I first found out what abortion was, I started to cry."

I listened again to Rev. Garnder, the pro-choice minister whom Phil debated in 1995. His thinking is so twisted and illogical. I can hear the shrill defensive anxiety in his voice as he attempts to diminish the truth of Scripture...so sad, so sick...

Did you know there's now such a thing as an abortion doula? Yep, women who help comfort you through an abortion. From Jill Stanek's blog

I found this horrifying testimony:

“Those pictures pro-life activists flash are real. That is what a fetus looks like when its head is crushed. When you see the procedure, you must decide, as a pro-choice person, whether you are in or out. … I have never been more in…. Doing them underground is a major last resort. I would be willing to, if things came to that.” ~ Abortion doula Mary Mahoney,


http://www.jillstanek.com/

Pop-pop (and others), please pray for me that I can truly do our Father's Will in this work.

Shasha,

Looks like you are well on your way (not that you haven’t already been).

Nevertheless, never forget that your devotional life is most important, is central. Rejoice in that your name is inscribed in heaven.

If you keep this service arena, and any and all other activities part and parcel of your devotional life, all shall be well (as Clare writes).

While God looks for faithful servants, and obedient sons / daughters, He most desires a spouse.

Pop-pop

(methinks, anyway)

Hi Pops!

Yes, I know what you mean. I pray not to get lost in the doing for the love affair with God.

While driving to work one day a few months ago, I was seized by the Holy Spirit, praying in tongues gushed out of me, Power fell on me as I drove to Planned Parenthood. I sat on the grass in front of the building, cross-legged, under a beautiful sunny sky. I was lifted into a Heavenly realm while still on Earth. I felt such a Peace where I was, knowing and trusting my Father.

Christ truly has created a room for us. For maybe 10-15 minutes non-stop I prayed in tongues some things that only God knows.

I realized the only way to fight Planned Parenthood is to remain in Christ's peace. Not capable of getting agitated or angry or bitter or self-righteous in this Peace because we are not really in this world.

That's the only way to do anything anyway, in Christ's peace...

I read in St. Therese yesterday how she committed herself as bride to our Lord, eager to be hidden, stepped on, martyred in body and soul...I'm open to that...but it's not my choice, not my will, Father, but Yours.

Prayers for your ministry, Shasha.

And I'm glad to hear you've been able to make use of my debate with George Gardner. The truth is that I really liked the man as he was very gentle and affable. He went beyond the principles set forth in his own tradition (Methodism), however, in his exaltation of conscience. I know of no tradition, Christian or otherwise, that would say that one could be in good conscience to deliberately kill an innocent human being. George's big mistake was to imply that the moral status of the fetus itself was an issue of conscience, and he was clearly wrong about that, as I pointed out in our debate. A number of members of his church community came up to me during the break to express shock at some of what he had shared.

----

Pop, I mostly agree with your reply concerning the responsibility that women bear toward caring for the unborn. They do not make their decisions in a vacuum, however; the pressure of a boyfriend or even a husband can often push them to make a decision they'd rather not. It's not an easy choice for many of them, perhaps most. Much, much prayer is needed for this issue to improve.

Thanks for your prayers Phil.

It was painful to listen to Gardner, much more so recently than when I first heard your debate with him about 2-3 years ago. He would have us believe that humans are just part of a cosmic 'food chain,' eat or be eaten, no way around this tragedy. Abortion is justified in the same sense that an American Indian thanks the deer before he kills it for dinner! He actually provided that analogy.

And about Psalms 139 and 22, unbelievable that he said this: "[God] is not speaking literally but metaphorically. Life is in God not that God knows every individual embryo in every mother’s womb!...we know from reproductive medicine at moment of conception, when one sperm unites with 1 egg, this connection is 1 out of 10 MILLION possibilities at that moment! Medically, conception in the BEST of circumstances has 19% chance of occurring. What one gets is not a divine pre-ordained embryo placed in a woman’s womb by God, but an embryo that has been created out of the RANDOMNESS of the human reproductive process."

Right, very convincing Gardner, no divine plan in any of that randomness.

He goes on with this: "Does abortion end a potential life? Yes it does, but the potential fetus is no more the birthed child than the acorn is the oak tree or the seed that flower."

Potential fetus?? Really, George, "potential"? Not falling for that. Easy to see through your scrambling to deny reality here.

Phil asked him "When do you think life begins?" Gardner admitted he did not know when life begins (that's what the Supreme Court justices claimed in 1973), nor did he think much about ensoulment.
I liked Phil's comment that the unborn have a spiritual soul. The mother gives an egg, the father a sperm, but it is only God Who gives the unborn baby a spiritual soul.

And this nonsense, changing the subject:

"Not everything conceived will live...we know that from miscarriages"

Dude, a miscarriage is a whole lot different than an elective abortion! One has to willfully, consciously aggress against a living human being to kill it in abortion.

Another very disturbing comment he made: "I'm not FOR abortion. Nobody is really for abortion.
I'm for choice!"

Um, let me see if I understand you:

You (and your Methodist Church)
defend the desire of a MOTHER to

ABORT her baby.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You can try to be slippery about it, but I call that being FOR abortion, in support of abortion, in favor of allowing elective abortions, you morally condone a mother's wish to kill her unborn child. I call that being pro-abortion.

Phil,

I had suggested to Shasha that she might add external pressure from the male as a contributing factor. See #2 in my post of 16 November.

I don't deny that there is impetus in play with these decisions.

Pop

Shasha, just to clarify: the United Methodist denomination is anti-abortion, and I even confronted Rev. Gardner with his own tradition's teaching. He just winked and smiled.

Here's a link to an article that explains some recent stiffening of their teaching.
- http://www.flumc.info/cgi-scri...es/000054/005438.htm

Phil--
From that link you provided (2009), it's clear the United Methodist Church is not pro-abortion, but that discussion is sufficiently vague about the morality of killing the unborn, except for late term abortion and mother's life.

And then there's this I found from 2009:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – The United Methodist Church has withdrawn from a letter signed by several religious groups and sent to Barack Obama urging him to him to promote abortion as president. ..The move doesn’t mean the United Methodist Church has come around to support the pro-life position and Tooley points out that it remains a member of the radically pro-abortion Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

??

----------------

Pop-pop,

I do think many women are highly pressured by boyfriends and others to have an abortion that they may not fully want. (And it's not just men who are pressuring them to abort. Many moms pressure their daughters to abort.) Overall, succumbing to pressure from others is the issue of an immature self. They lack the sense of a solid, core sense of self. They don't know who they are, what they want, what they believe. In some women, they are so emotionally immature, they cannot consider their own values/beliefs because they are driven to please and appease others--even at a cost to their babies. They don't define themselves as separate from others.

Shasha,

Certainly, I understand what you have explained.

Just as certainly, one takes a Giant step towards attaining maturity when one decides for keeping the baby. One attains the self-esteem that comes with one’s knowing they’ve made the right decision – albeit the more difficult one. Nobility comes with acting nobly.

Certainly too, 56% of total abortions being repeats, does not attest to growth away from immaturity. In the interim, a 100% loss of the innocent’s life.

In a sense, compassion for the immature mother is akin to compassion for the sexual molester – be he priest or football coach – at the disregard of the victimized child.

Society and pro-choice Christians seem to understand the one travesty, but not the other.

Wild that some Christians wrote letters to Obama requesting his continued endorsement of abortion. Sin blinds.

Pop-pop

RE: The United Methodist Church stand on abortion, the most up-to-date on line statement I found is from 6/29/2010.

http://www.umc-gbcs.org/site/a...3&ct=8488209¬oc=1


Regarding abortion, The United Methodist Church acknowledges that God controls the beginning and end of each life. Unborn human life is sacred to The United Methodist Church. With reluctance, the Social Principles concede that abortion may be option in pregnancy: but only when the well-being of the mother is at risk. The United Methodist Church believes it is “equally bound to respect the sacredness of life and the [welfare] of the mother.” The United Methodist Church acknowledges that God controls the beginning and end of each life.

However, they also say this:

The Social Principles explain that the decision to have an abortion should only be made after prayerful consideration

Just doesn't add up. God controls the beginning of life, but a woman, for her "well-being" can consent to an abortionist destroying the human life in her womb after "prayerful consideration."

In contrast to the United Methodist Church, here's a statement from the Free Methodist Church:

The Free Methodist Church is firmly opposed to abortion. Abortion is selfish and malicious when it serves the ends of population or birth control, personal preference, convenience and social or economic security. We recognize there are those whose views are contrary to ours. We believe they should be treated with respect and dignity since God’s forgiveness is offered to all.

It should be noted that Rev. Gardner's tradition was UMC. I read their statement during the debate, and although it condemned abortion, especially for use as a backup to failed birth control, it said nothing about the status of the unborn. I found that to be a significant omission.

*We recognize there are those whose views are contrary to ours. We believe they should be treated with respect and dignity since God’s forgiveness is offered to all.*

God’s forgiveness is offered upon acknowledgement of sin and attendant remorse, apology and the solicitation of forgiveness.

It is presumptuous to consider that God’s forgiveness exists without acknowledgement and confession of sin and apology to God.

How will folk realize that sin is truly in play if a church’s teaching is not clear.

Does not the victim require one’s apology and the soliciting of forgiveness?

This is far more serious than contrary views! Those last two italicized sentences reflect political correctness -- not clear and sound Christian teaching.

Jesus did not pay deferential respect to the contrary views of those He taught, the contrary views of the scribes and Pharisees.

Paul did not pay deferential respect to the contrary views of the pagans.

Saints throughout history did not pay deferential respect to the contrary views of heretics or false teachers.

Evil typically is a contrary view. (Is it not?)

Hitler had a contrary view. Man-Boy love is a contrary view. Human sacrifice is a contrary view.

Abortion-rights is a contrary view.

If I were an unborn child I would vomit your 'contrary view' out of my mouth. Presume on someone else’s life — not mine.

I hope this link will work! This is holy & breath-taking.


http://www.ted.com/talks/alexa...l#.Ts__5nh4Ve8.email

Hi Gail,

This is the third time I watched that video. Very beautiful. And the music is a good piece, whatever it is.

Hard to imagine that people dare to do research with embryos. How can they not see that this is God's business?

----------

Pop-pop, Interesting response above. I can see why the author might want to soften the statement that abortion is malicious and selfish. Not easy to separate the act of abortion from the character of the aborter. Maybe that was this authors way of trying to do that. Are they separable? The woman who aborts her child may well be giving and loving in many other areas of her life.

I see a need to hold both compassion and moral judgment in balance. Explanations and understanding for selfish acts like abortion or sexual abuse don't exonerate the crime/sin. Some post-abortive woman gain healing from seeing themselves as both victim and perpetrator--not either or. Until they can do that for themselves, it helps if we can model that for them.

Shasha,

Part of my focus is on getting pro-choice Christians to see themselves and their position. But part of my focus is also to strengthen pro-life Christians in their understanding and their arguing.

When one writes:

“I see a need to hold both compassion and moral judgment in balance”,* one expresses compassion for the mother, but not for the unborn child. The unborn is once again left undefended. Everyone is being compassionate and the unborn are dying still.

Once again, compassion is an after-the-fact consideration, and thereby non-preventative.

The objective of your goal in this ministry you are working at (imo) is to preclude abortion. Correct?

Compassion works towards the objective of soothing / healing the aborter. That is a different objective. As such, it fails to preclude the abortion. It fails to defend the unborn. It weakens the attainment of your goal (if I understand your goal correctly).

Project Rachael is a different ministry than is Right to Life. Different beings are under consideration, and the legal laws that need change are non-applicable to Project Rachael.

Now, let’s relook this statement:

The Free Methodist Church is firmly opposed to abortion. Abortion is selfish and malicious when it serves the ends of population or birth control, personal preference, convenience and social or economic security. We recognize there are those whose views are contrary to ours. We believe they should be treated with respect and dignity since God’s forgiveness is offered to all.

The unborn gets no essential focus in the above statement. A mother being ‘selfish’ doesn’t carry the same vital and significant impact as the reality of an unborn child being dead. Selfishness doesn’t seem so serious, whereas death is deadly serious and unrepentable. And ‘Abortion is selfish WHEN…’ is weak. This should not be a conditional statement. The statement’s next concern then focuses on how the mother gets treated -- respect and dignity for the mother – and of course God’s forgiving nature. Meantime, baby is lost from consideration – lost to the awareness of the reader. We can congratulate ourselves on our being compassionate. This expresses a self-focus, a desire to win societal approval and appearance, not a defense of the unborn, not an end to slaughter of the millions.

As for the UMC statement – worse than the FMC, imo. And who are these Social Principles? Lol.

It would be great if we would stop applying the term abortion to those instances of saving a mother’s life. We should endeavor to change the terminology for that situation to reflect the saving not the aborting, as that really is the moral focus -- something to the effect that the church is pro-retention but anti-abortion; abortion being the ending of life, retention being the continuance of life.

We can endeavor to change the language of this debate as the other side has with their ‘pro-choice’ focus.

Pop-pop

p.s. As for: “The woman who aborts her child may well be giving and loving in many other areas of her life.” I tend to think such maternal qualities would be lost on the lost unborn child.

We’re bending over backwards at the expense of the undefended millions. Should we? …… Must we?

Pop-pop,

I appreciate you're wanting to strengthen my arguing and thinking on this.

I don't view my compassion for the mother, either before or after she aborts her baby, as a 'feeling,' an emotion, or perspective that clouds my stand against abortion. Killing the born is wrong, for any reason (unless it's something like a tubal pregnancy which is not physically viable and can kill the mother).

Abortion is immoral because you are killing a child who has a God-ordained right to live.

Compassion for the mother does not occlude my compassion for the baby.

My goal is to prevent abortion AND to help women come to reality, repentance and healing post abortion. In a sense, we all can do this by living lives of virtue in an everyday sense. As a 'formal' ministry, I can go from working at Rachel's Vineyard one weekend to Right to Life the next. I don't change my perspective; I don't change who I am moving from one ministry or location to the next.

The Church is a hospital for the sick, right? Killing one's own child is a grisly sickness, psychological and spiritual. Believing it's OK for others to kill their unborn child is a grisly sickness. These people are largely incapable of seeing their sin, owing to multi-determined and overlapping reasons of ignorance, immaturity, and arrogance (denial of God). These factors are formed and sustained by intra-psychic, family, and societal brokenness. Not to mention the forces of evil in high places that kill, steal, and destroy the human race.

Preventing abortion absolutely would take a complete transformation of human consciousness, perhaps only the Second Coming of Christ can do that.

In the meantime, defending the lives of the unborn does not mean we can't extend compassion for the parents. I'm repeating myself...gotta fly for now.

Shasha,

You needn't have defended yourself.

I was endeavoring to get at concepts and language and ideas -- but I guess I fell short. It probably wasn't worth the effort. Sorry about it all.

I'm not against compassion.

Pop-pop

Pop-pop,

Oh, now I see more what you mean. The concepts and language.

Yes, it is a subtle deception going on with 'pro-choicers' when there is a focus on the mother's desires, her "crisis pregnancy," her facing the burden of an unwanted pregnancy, her fears of facing her parents, afraid to face the world with her shameful, pregnant belly, interrupting her ambitions, etc. That language can be focussed manipulatively on her dire circumstances and our need to cater to those with our understanding and empathy and compassion.
All at the colossal neglect of the unborn baby's right to life.

Is that what you mean, right?

I saw a pro-choice video (I think it was called "motherhood by choice, not chance") that portrayed the plight of women before abortion was legal. The author herself was denied an abortion by her MD. She went to some back-alley abortionist and ended up bleeding badly. She was taken by ambulance to the hospital after this botched abortion and back to the original doctor who refused to abort her baby. She says smth like, "So now he is forced to try to save my life after refusing to give me a medically safe abortion!" Throughout this 30 or so minute video, there is not

one

word

mentioned about the unborn child's right to life. Or even any regard for the doctor's conscience as a motivator for his refusal.
It's a string of sob stories, especially her own, of women heaping destruction on themselves when abortion is restricted. My compassion was really limited in response to this video. The focus was entirely on the poor women, who are depicted as entitled to live in a society which offers them an easy way to have their babies killed in the womb. In this flick, there was no regard for their unborn children. There was no regard for the pro-life position; no understanding of the immorality of baby-killing.

And another issue. Women who insert coat hangers into their uterus should be treated like anyone else who self-mulitates. They need psychiatric help...very badly. The stress is so high that their judgment is impaired! But first stop the bleeding, then transfer them to the Psych ward. Assess the crisis, then help resolve their problems before releasing them. The threat of coat hanger abortions should not be used to blackmail (is that the word I want?) or manipulate the world to help pregnant women get rid of their babies. Women need help taking, not avoiding, responsibility for their pregnancies.

Shasha,

You've found the mark, milady!

Very nicely put in several places. PERFECTO!

Yes, right on, Shasha. And that's typical pro-choice spin -- that without legalized abortion, women will have no recourse but to back-alley options. Only . . . abortion is still legal!. So why does any woman need to resort to back-alley options?

It's also par for the course that the moral status of the unborn be ignored!