What's moral or heroic about conservative
male churchmen and/or politicians interfering with
the most private and intimate decisions of women ?

Let's talk about the leading opponents of birth-control & abortion,
the Roman Catholic hierarchy

Most people would agree that today's "Pro-Life" movement is the fruition of the teaching of some of the most Conservative of Roman Catholic Popes.  Many people mistakenly believe that the Catholic Church has always believed that human life begins at conception, which is what drives the church's opposition to abortion in any and all circumstances and to every form of "artificial" birth-control (because these all involve termination of the life of a fertilized egg).  The truth is that the church has see-sawed over the centuries between belief in human life beginning at conception vs. its beginning at the time of "ensoulment" at some unknowable later stage of pregnancy.
        Since the Catholic Church has played such a prominent role in the promotion of the current radical "pro-life" position, we believe it deserves special attention from everybody effected by its teaching whether they be Catholics or not.  We address the specific problems with the teaching of the Roman Catholic hierarchy at CatholicArrogance.Org/Catholic/abortionteaching.html.

Regarding others who claim to base their views of abortion on the Bible:

As a life-long devout Christian, and a Bible-guided clergyman all of my adult life, I wish that the Bible were more helpful in resolving these questions.  But the Holy Scriptures simply don't resolve every moral issue, and they certainly don't address the crucial issues involved in the morality of abortion, as I have clearly demonstrated on ChristianChoice-1.html.  Jesus said that the Father didn't even share all of his knowledge with him, about the timing of the end of the world, for example.  Unlike the rest of us who have no direct line to God, some people claim to have special knowledge of God's mind.  But, in truth they don't have any more access to God's mind and will than you do. 
        In this connection, whenever self-assured preachers go around accusing others of "murder", I can't help but wonder if Jesus is saying, "There you go again!"  How similar this scenario is to the one related in

According to { John 7:53 - 8:3-11 } 

"As Jesus was speaking, the Jewish leaders and Pharisees (i.e. the leaders of the "religious right" of that time) brought a woman caught in adultery and placed her out in front of the staring crowd.  "Teacher," they said to Jesus, "this woman was caught in the very act of adultery.  Moses' law says to kill her.  What about it?"  They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use  against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger.  They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said,   "All right, hurl the stones at her until she dies.  But only he who never sinned may throw the first!"  Then he stooped down again and wrote some more in the dust.   And the Jewish leaders slipped away one by one, beginning with the eldest, until only Jesus was left in front of the crowd with the woman.  Then Jesus stood up again and said to her, "Where are your accusers? Didn't even one of them condemn you?"  "No, sir," she said.   And Jesus said, "Neither do I.  Go and sin no more."

( Given the number of people who write to me in order to emphasize the last words, maybe the story should have continued : "One of those shamed by Jesus was close enough to hear what he said to her and ran to catch up with the others and said to them. 'Guess what Jesus said to her after you left. Maybe we'll get a chance to stone her after all, if she falls into sin again!'  And they all agreed to keep an eye on her."  If such people hadn't missed the point of this story, they would realize that "Go and sin no more" applies to their judgmentalism as much as this woman's adultery. )
        Jesus elaborated on this theme in another familiar passage, in

According to  {Matthew 7:3-5} 

"And why worry about a speck in the eye of a brother when you have a beam in your own?  Should you say, 'Friend, let me help you get that speck out of your eye,' when you can't even see because of the beam in your own?  Hypocrite!  First get rid of the beam.  Then you can see to help your brother."

When the religious zealots of our day throw stones at women who don't feel obligated to complete their pregnancies, aren't these men doing exactly what Jesus condemned?  Even though the woman had been caught "in the very act of adultery" (a serious biblical sin), Jesus condemned those who wanted to throw stones at her, not only because they were sinners, but because they were overlooking their own sinfulness in their zeal to condemn someone else.
        We can only guess what Jesus wrote in the dust, but it surely shamed the holier than thou male preachers rather than the woman "caught in the very act of adultery"   The fact is that Jesus had much, much more to say about the sins of clerics than those of ordinary men and women, all of which I have studied and spelled out in this

study of the Gospels : 

Since there is next to nothing in the Scriptures to justify condemning a woman for the premature termination of a pregnancy, but literally scores of passages condemning the sins of clerics, what would Jesus say about all of the male clerics pointing accusing fingers at women today?  All we need to do to find out, is to read what Jesus said . . .

According to Matthew 23:1-14:

"You would think these religious leaders and these Pharisees were Moses, the way they keep making up so many laws! . . .  It may be all right to do what they say, but above anything else, don't follow their example.  For they don't do what they tell you to do.  They load you with impossible demands that they themselves don't even try to keep."  (This wouldn't have to do with things like birth-control, abortion, clerical celibacy, perpetuating male dominance over women, would it? ). . . 
"Everything they do is done for show . . .  They act holy by wearing on their arms little prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and by lengthening the memorial fringes of their robes.  And how they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the reserved pews in the synagogue!  How they enjoy the deference paid them on the streets and to be called 'Teacher' and 'Master'!  Don't ever let anyone call you that.  For only God is your Teacher and all of you are on the same level, as brothers.  And don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father,' for only God in heaven should be addressed like that.  And don't be called 'Master,' for only one is your master, even the Messiah. . .  Woe to you, Pharisees, and you other religious leaders.  Hypocrites!  For you won't let others enter the kingdom of heaven and won't go in yourselves."

Are these words of Jesus nothing but a quaint "dead letter", now that we call our houses of worship "churches", instead of "synagogues", and "reserved pews in the synagogue" have been superseded by ornate thrones in basilicas and cathedrals?

How can anyone read Jesus' demands that his disciples shun Titles of honor, and never suspect that if Jesus considered "Father" and "Teacher" objectionable, he must really be upset with "Monsignor" (which is French for "My Lord"), "Your Excellency", "Your Eminence", "Your Holiness", "The Holy Father", "Supreme Pontiff", and perhaps most presumptuous of all, "Vicar of (i.e. stand-in for) Christ", the equivalent of "Vice-Messiah" !   Before tackling the specks (or whatever) that is in the eyes of others, particularly women, and doing so much reading between the lines to do it, shouldn't the clergy start by noticing what Jesus had to say to clergymen themselves?
        Approximately a half billion people on earth look to the Roman Catholic hierarchy for moral guidance.  Recent books, by Roman Catholics John Cornwell and Gordon Zahn, raise some serious questions about the leadership their church has been getting from the pompous, autocratic, aristocratic, bureaucratic Roman Pope and Curia, a leadership which exemplifies the very opposite of what Jesus instructed his disciples to be and to do. Get a taste of what these scholars have uncovered at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/RCscandal.html.
        At the very time the celibate hierarchy of the R. C. Church claimed to know with absolute certainty that married couples who practiced birth control, or abortion, and young men or women who masturbated would surely burn forever in hell (for sins not even identified as transgressions in the Bible),  these self-proclaimed "men of God" could not figure out that God might want them to tell those under their moral guidance that it was a much more serious "mortal sin" for Roman Catholics to work (in any number of ways) for a regime that was engaged in the mass-murder of many millions of Jews, Poles, handicaps, gays, liberals, and Jehovah Witnesses  !
        How sad that many of the "faithful" are so misguided that they believe the claims of such "men of the cloth" to speak for God !

---

As for the question of when a human embryo becomes a human person, in the absence of any clear proof, biblical or other, Christians - along with people of other faiths or no faith - are entitled to liberal or conservative beliefs in this matter for themselves.  All those who want to make the Pro-Life stance a principal tenet of their faith are entitled to do so.  They should be respected, just like any other religion, so long as they show the same respect for those who don't share their faith.  But, since Jesus clearly condemned those who would burden others "with impossible demands that they themselves  don't even try to keep," there is nothing "Christian" about condemning others for a sin the Bible itself does not even recognize? 
        The fact of the matter is that Christians who believe that human life begins at conception have no right to force that belief on fellow Christians, let alone on those who do not share their Christian faith!
        Far from having any right to burden others with their beliefs, all that such people have, is an obligation to carry all of the burdens which that belief imposes on them.   When Pro-Life people become aware of a mother's intention to terminate a pregnancy, and are convinced that a human being's life is at stake, such people do not have a God-given right to force that mother or anybody else to believe as they do.  But they do have an obligation to act on their beliefs themselves.  What they should learn from God's Word is not a right to obligate others, but a responsibility to obligate themselves.  They should offer to take and raise any and all of those whom they view as imminent murder victims themselves.
        After raising our first five children, my wife and I adopted first one, then another, then another, until we had taken full responsibility for five children that others had brought into the world, three of them severely handicapped.  We can't help but wonder why more middle-class Christians like ourselves, who claim to revere the same Scriptures as we, are not doing as we have done.   No one likes abortion, but since it might be said "abortion you will always have with you," we need to deal with it.  Why are those Christians who insist on viewing abortion as a tragic victimization of innocent human beings, so concerned with imposing on others what they think the Scriptures should say, instead of attending themselves to what those Scriptures do say.
        Take the following passages, for example:

According to {Matthew 25:34-46} 

"Then I, the King, shall say to those at my right, "Come, blessed of my Father, into the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.  For I was hungry and you fed me; I was thirsty and you gave me water; I was a stranger - and you invited me into your homes; naked and you clothed me; sick and in prison, and you visited me."
        Then these righteous ones will reply,  "Sir, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you?  Or thirsty and give you anything to drink?  Or a stranger, and help you?  Or naked, and clothe you?  When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?"
        And I, the King, will tell them, "When you did it to these my brothers you were doing it to me!"  Then I will turn to those on my left and say, "Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.  For I was hungry and you wouldn't feed me; thirsty, and you wouldn't give me anything to drink; a stranger, and you refused me hospitality; naked, and you wouldn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me."
        Then they will reply, "Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?"  And I will answer,  "When you refused to help the least of these my brothers, you were refusing help to me." And they shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into everlasting life."

According to {1 John 3:17-29 } 

"But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need and won't help him - how can God's love be within him?   Little children, let us stop just saying we love people; let us really love them, and show it by our actions.  Then we will now for sure, by our actions, that we are on God's side, and our consciences will be clear, even when we stand before the Lord.  

According to {Luke 10:25-37} 

"One day an expert on Moses' laws came to test Jesus' orthodoxy by asking him this question: "Teacher, what does a man need to do to live forever in heaven?"  Jesus replied, "What does Moses' law say about it?"  "It says," he replied, "that you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,and with all your strength, and with all your mind.  And you must love your neighbor just as much as you love yourself."  "Right!" Jesus told him.  "Do this and you shall live!"
        The man wanted to justify himself {i.e. his lack of love for some neighbors}, so he asked,     "Which neighbors?"  Jesus replied with an illustration: "A Jew going on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho was attacked by bandits.  They stripped him of his clothes and money, and beat him up and left him lying half dead beside the road.   "By chance a priest came along; and when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by.  A temple-assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but then went on.   But a despised Samaritan (a foreigner) came along, and when he saw him, he felt deep pity.  Kneeling beside him the Samaritan soothed his wounds with medicine and bandaged them.  Then he put the man on his donkey and walked along beside him till they came to an inn, where he nursed him through the night.  The next day he handed the innkeeper  two silver coins and told him to take care of the man.  "If his bill runs higher than that,"  he said, "I'll pay the difference the next time I am here."   Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the bandits' victim?  The man replied, "The one who showed him some pity."  Then Jesus said, "Yes, now go and do the same."

Passages such as these are what moved my wife and me to adopt our five children.   Instead of being in the front line of those condemning others for the practice of abortion, we believe the Bible's teaching should lead the clergy to be in the front line of those offering to save "baby human beings,"  by taking and raising them themselves?  Although celibacy bars the Roman Catholic clergy from marriage, it doesn't bar them from parenthood.  Why do so many Roman Catholic bishops and priests expect lay men and women to do what they conveniently avoid doing themselves?  It's no excuse to claim that they cannot combine their profession with child-rearing.  Men in every other profession and trade manage that responsibility?   The clergy of every other denomination do it.  And even the Catholic clergy did it for ten centuries!  How many clergy and other "pro-life" champions are leading the way by volunteering to take the most unwanted of babies:  the severely handicapped, "crack babies," the victims of AIDS, and the like?

---

Isn't it curious how prosperous "Conservative" Christians, who vehemently resist most every tax-funded program to help the needy, are such enthusiastic supporters of the "pro-life" cause?   They want to make endorsement of this non-biblical belief the touchstone of Christianity, and want to see every embryo come to term, no matter what the cost is to someone other than themselves !  And these very same people resent immigration, welfare, nutrition, head start, guaranteed health insurance for everyone, universal employment, minimum wage, civil rights for all, and even housing and education programs for those very children, once born.  What is so different about this one cause, that it enables the well-to-do, who resist just about every other form of biblical compassion, to embrace this one?  Could it be that it costs them nothing?  They get to be held up as morally upstanding people by coming out in favor of imposing burdens on others, burdens which the Bible does not impose.

---

1 John, Ch. 4, v. 20 says: 

"Those who say, "I love God," and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen."

It might likewise be said that "Those who say, 'we love embryos', whom they cannot see, while not being concerned about their brothers or sisters whom they can see, are liars."

It's amazing how many Pro-Life female activists suddenly change their tune, when they find themselves hosts to an unintended and unwanted pregnancy :

Why morality is best served by liberal churchmen & Democratic politicians
    fighting to defend women's right to abort their pregnancies

Those who oppose "choice" often betray their dishonesty (and the immorality of their position) by falsely accusing pro-choice people of being "pro-abortion", instead of "pro-choice".  They know full well that no "pro-choice" advocate has ever urged anyone who had no need for one to have an abortion.
        In light of the fact that neither science nor religion can determine conclusively at what stage of development a human person distinct from the mother comes into being, with rights of its own, it is immoral for those with one opinion on the matter to use either the church or the government to impose their opinion on those who simply don't share it.
        While most theocratic dictatorships around the world around the world share the views of America's more fundamentalist churchmen and politicians, most of the Liberal Democracies around world and "pro choice". This is no accident.  Nor is it evidence that the Liberal Democracies are immoral.  Quite the contrary.  It's not moral, but immoral for those with narrow and intellectually unsupportable views to use political power to force those views on those whose hearts and minds lead them to more liberal views on morality.
        Even if Conservatives were right on the morality of abortion, America's experiment with the prohibition of alcohol in the last century - which proved how disastrous it is to try to force moral views on a public that doesn't share them - should persuade informed moral leaders of the foolishness of attempting aprohibition of abortion in this century.
        Liberal churchmen and the Democratic Party should not apologize for being pro-choice, because that is the moral thing to do.  Amendment IX of the Bill of Rights declares, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  and Amendment X,  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."  It is morally and politically wrong for religions and/ or political Conservatives in America to try to deny others the right to live by their own devices.  And it is morally and politically right for religious and/ or political Liberals to respect and defend those rights. 

There is growing support among Christian (and other) clergy

How various religions view abortion

About 40 percent of religious congregations reportedly participate in some type of abortion activity, whether pro-choice or pro-life. Here is a summary of the views held by leading religions and denominations:

Christianity

• Roman Catholic Church: The Roman Catholic Church, with more than 60 million members in the United States and Canada, has taken an historically well-known stance against abortion. Under its laws, a woman who obtains an abortion faces excommunication, except to save the life of the mother.

The Catholic hierarchy has failed so miserably in convincing its own members that it wants to use the U.S. government to enforce its beliefs on both members and non-members of its church.
        A reputable 2000-2001 survey found that the abortion rate among Catholic women was 22 per 1,000 women; while the rate for Protestants was only 18 per 1,000 women. (Surprisingly, 13% of the women surveyed actually admitted to being evangelical or "born again".)
[ factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_catholic_women_get_abortions_more_frequently.html ]

• Southern Baptist Convention: The world's largest Protestant denomination, with more than 15 million members in North America, generally takes an anti-abortion position.
• National Baptist Convention: A predominantly black denomination, abortion is not favored, but a woman's right to choose is also stressed. There are more than 8 million members in the United States and Canada.
• Greek Orthodox Church: Abortion is murder, according to the Greek Orthodox Church, which believes that life begins when a child is conceived. Exceptions are permitted in cases of life or death for the mother. Generally, a woman having an abortion must seek repentance to be welcomed back into the church. There are more than 530 churches in North and South America and about 2 million members in the United States and Canada.
• United Methodist: With more than 8 million members in North America, United Methodists generally take a pro-choice stance.
• Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints: (Mormons): With more than 4.6 million members in the United States and Canada, this group strongly opposes abortion.
• Presbyterian Church (U.S.): This denomination, with more than 3.6 million members in the United States and Canada, strongly stresses the personal right to choose based on an individual's religious principles and opposes government interference in the issue.

  African Methodist Episcopal: The more than 3.5 million members in North America hold various points of view on abortion, though many leaders describe themselves as pro-life.

• Seventh Day Adventist: This denomination has more than 775,000 members in North America and in general believes that the final decision should be made by the woman after "appropriate consultation" and "guidance of the Holy Spirit."
• United Church of Christ: The more than 1.6 million members in the United States and Canada stresses alternatives to abortions, but uphold the woman's right to choose.
• Unitarian Universalist: Members generally believe in a woman's right to choose as part of her right to privacy. There are 500,000 members in North America.

Jews :

• Most Orthodox Jews strictly oppose abortion, except to save a mother's life. Rape or incest cases are no exceptions. Many of the 1 million Orthodox Jews in the United States and Canada oppose government intervention in abortion, which they feel is a religious matter.
• Reform: Reform Jews believe in a woman's right to have an abortion and oppose anti-choice efforts. There are about 1.5 million members.
• Some Conservative Jews hold views, while many of the 1.2 million Conservative Jews are anti-abortion, others are closer to Reform Jewish position, i.e. pro-choice.

        See The Fetus in Jewish Law.

Buddhism :

• With more than 320 million members worldwide, many Buddhists believe that abortion is killing, but approval or disapproval of abortion should be determined according to each situation.

Islam :

• Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, administrative assistant at the Council of Islamic Organizations in Detroit, expressed the view of most Islamic countries: "We are against abortion unless it's a matter of life or death for the mother. In the Koran, it tells us we should not kill our children for want or anything. That is 'harram,' Arabic for forbidden." There are more than 5 million Muslims in the United States and Canada.

Hinduism :

• The more than 700 million Hindus worldwide believe the soul enters the embryo at the moment of conception. Traditionally, abortion is forbidden except in cases of rape or incest or to save the mother's life.

Like his conservative church, Adolf Hitler was "pro life" !

Hitler was as "pro-life" as his pope when it came to the 99% of his fellow Germans whom he considered worthy of life.

Some Pro-Life people try to compare abortion to the NAZI "holocaust".  This of course conjures up images of the slaughter of Jews during World War II.  But, far from being champions of "choice", the perpetrators of the holocaust, like most Conservative dictators, were fierce champions of "the unborn".  In the NAZI bible, "Mein Kampf", Adolf Hitler made plain his Catholic feelings on abortion.  "I'll put an end to the idea that a woman's body belongs to her . . .  NAZI ideals demand that the practice of abortion shall be exterminated with a strong hand."  Accordingly, Hitler sentenced Aryan women who had abortions to hard labor after the first offense, to death after the second.  Advocacy for the life of unborn obviously didn't translate into respect for the life of the born for Hitler then.  And neither does it do so in our time.

Jurisprudence vs. Moral Theology

In an article published April 23, 2004 in the National Catholic Reporter, the U. of Notre Dame theologian, Richard McBrien, makes the point that :

Does anyone actually believe that greedy, selfish, pompous Conservative Republicans like George Bush, Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Ken Starr, Tom Delay, Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Judge Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, would not be the first in line to have a girl friend, a mistress, a wife, a daughter, or a sister of theirs abort an unwanted pregnancy in order to protect their reputations, or for any other convenience?  How much would you be willing to risk in a wager that they have already done so, and would be no less willing to do so again?
        Deep in your heart, you know full well that, while engaging in it privately when it suits them, these hypocritical politicians only oppose abortion publicly because of the political benefits which this issue has given Republicans, by driving a wedge between a vast number of poor, and middle class people (who have everything to gain by supporting the Democratic Party), and persuading them to ignore their self-interest in order to support the party that opposes just about all of their interests as poor or working class people.

Why abortion rates go up under Republican administrations
and down under Democratic administrations.

In mid 2005, Susan Wood the FDA's director of the Office of Women's Health, resigned her position. She cited the agency's endless stalling and political maneuvering over emergency contraception as the reason for her resignation. Here's an excerpt from the e-mail she wrote to colleagues announcing her decision:
        "I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled. . . The recent decision announced by the Commissioner about emergency contraception, which continues to limit women's access to a product that would reduce unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions, is contrary to my core commitment to improving and advancing women's health.  [Reproductive Health Technologies Project]

Righteous abortion: How conservative Christianity
promotes what it claims to hate

America's high rate of abortion can be directly attributed to conservative Christianity's obsession with controlling and suppressing sexuality. The most effective way to reduce abortion is to de-stigmatize sexuality, improve sexual education, and ensure broad access to excellent contraceptives. In the highly secular Netherlands, this formula has knocked abortion down to 7 per 1000 women annually, one third the U.S. rate.
        So why does the anti-abortion movement keep their focus on restrictive laws instead of contraceptive access? Why do they oppose medically accurate sex ed? Why do they pledge to defund Title X family planning? Why are they having fits about programs that provide top tier contraceptives to pregnant teens in Colorado and Washington (and virtually eliminate abortion among participating teens)? Because abortion isn't really what interests them. They want purity. They want righteousness. They want traditional gender roles with women as designated breeders who defer to male authority. They want these things so badly that they are willing even to drive up the abortion rate in order to get them.
        Four aspects of conservative Christianity promote accidental pregnancy: pro-natalism, an obsession with sexual sin, an emphasis on righteousness over compassion, and a determination to structure social rules and programs around some fantasy ideal rather than how the real world actually works). As a consequence they promote abortion.
        Pro-natalism. One of Christianity's competitive strategies is to drive up the birth rate of believers. The Old Testament describes an estimated 1.2 million deaths at the hand of Yahweh or his servants, which makes it hard to argue that Christianity is pro-life. It is, however, pro-birth. Be fruitful and multiply, says the writer of Genesis (Genesis 1:28); Women will be saved through childbearing, echoes a New Testament writer centuries later (1 Timothy 2:15). Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant Reformation, bluntly put it in his own words: "If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her only die from bearing; she is there to do it."Treating women as breeders, a strategy for increasing adherents, is at the heart of the Catholic anti-contraceptive stance and the Protestant Quiverfull movement. Historically, these attitudes may have driven up the number of Christians, but thanks to the Religious Right meddling in politics and education, today they drive up accidental pregnancy and abortion for Americans across the religious spectrum.
        Obsession with Sexual Sin. "Mama's baby, papa's maybe"�we all know what it means. By the Iron Age, when Judaism emerged, the male determination to know which babies were whose had taken the form of men owning women. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. (Exodus 20:17) Women caught in adultery (or missing their hymens) were killed by the ancient Hebrews, just as they are by conservative Muslims today.Christianity's obsession with sexual sin or rather with female virginity has produced the American purity myth, which makes candid conversations and education about sexuality a challenge. Ineffective abstinence education denies young people accurate information about their bodies and the means to prevent pregnancy. In contrast to more secular, open societies like Holland, teens in conservative American communities may be slow to use birth control, because that would make them guilty of the sin of premeditated sex.
        Emphasis on Righteousness over Compassion. Traditional Christianity is about right belief. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. (Acts 16:31). (Contrast this with the central virtue of Buddhism, ahimsa, or non-harm.) The focus on being right has caused Christianity to fracture into over 38,000 denominations. But schism is just one of many negative consequences that come from valuing right belief over compassionate living. Many believers would rather be right (and righteous) than loving. They'd rather be right than solve problems. They would rather condemn abortion from a position of righteous superiority than solve the complicated conditions that cause women to terminate pregnancies. They'd rather judge from the sidelines than get their hands dirty.
        Structuring Society for Fantasy Perfect Humans Rather than Real Humans. In the ideal fantasy world of Evangelical Christianity, teenagers wouldn't have sex. In fact nobody would ever have sex unless they were married and ready to have a baby. In this fantasy world all we need to do is teach teens to abstain (and then shame and punish the ones who don't) and voila, teen pregnancy will go away. This is the worldview that produced the painful story of Bristol Palin, who earned a quarter of a million dollars promoting abstinence only to find herself awkwardly announcing a second pregnancy.In the real world, the most dramatic improvements in teen pregnancy and family flourishing come when young people have excellent information about their own bodies and access to top tier contraceptives. Colorado dramatically dropped their rate of teen pregnancy and related high school drop-outs this way. But conservative Christians killed funding for the program with a toxic mix of bad faith and junk science.
        The world is on the cusp of a contraceptive revolution (which actually has bonus health benefits). State of the art long-acting contraceptives are 50 times as effective as the Pill at preventing accidental pregnancy. Each year almost 1 in 10 women on the Pill gets pregnant. Over a lifetime, that's two or three extra pregnancies per woman � unsought children or abortions. With a hormonal IUD or implant, that drops below 1 in 500! If that wasn't enough, some top tier contraceptives also reduce that monthly uncleanness and pain (Leviticus 15:19-24) brought on by Eve's curse.
        Someone who really wanted to reduce abortions would showcase better birth control in every teen health class in the country. They would make sure that the most effective contraceptives available were available to all women regardless of age or income, as a program in Washington State does. They would be more focused on promoting wise childbearing than virginity. Those who claim they want to end abortion don't succeed because that's not really what they are after."

Around the world, there's a general correlation between the availability of abortion and social concern for the well-being of children, according to the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. ( from material in "Anti-Child", By Kathra Pollitt   in The Nation,   Nov. 15,  1999 )

"Pro-Choice" nations:

" Pro-Life " nations:

The fifty nations that permit abortion regardless of a woman's reason for wanting one include the countries that show their love for their children by providing them with ample health care and education benefits, countries like :  Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Israel and Canada.

The Pro-Life Camp, on the other hand, boasts the countries with the worst infant mortality rates, no free schooling, and no other commitments to their children after birth.

Poland restricts abortion, while embracing free-market policies that consign ever more children to poverty.
        Ireland, which bars abortion except to save the mother's life, didn't institute free secondary schooling until 1967.

The only country in Latin America that permits unrestricted abortion is also the one that has universal free healthcare and education, and the lowest infant mortality rate in that region, i.e. Castro's Cuba.

It never ceases to amaze me how many excuses "pro-life" people can come up with to avoid any of the burdens they are determined to impose on mothers who are faced with the challenges of an unwanted pregnancy.  I saw Gary Bauer, the director of the Family Research Council and one of the nations leading Pro-Lifers, offer this great one on the national C-Span call in show (in March of 2003).  .  When asked if he was willing to adopt any unwanted children,  he replied that, considering the facts that he and his wife already had two little angels and that many more deserving parents were on waiting lists to adopt, it would be "unfair" of him to do so.
        As a former adoption advocate myself, I happen to know that despite the fact that a lot of people want to adopt, there are hundreds of thousands of children who are languishing in foster care or institutions  because many of those in line to adopt children only want model children,  not one or more of the thousands of "hard to place" children, ( i.e. older, sick, disturbed or handicapped, minority or mixed race, parts of sibling groups, etc.)  But Bauer must have gotten his queue from his fellow Republican Conservative leader, Congressman Tom Delay,  who explained his failure to serve in the military during the Vietnam war as the result of minorities having filled all the slots before he could get one!

        In response to my question:  "What are you prepared to do once those unwanted babies are born?  Will you adopt them all?  Will you pay for someone else to adopt and raise them?  Or will you go your merry way and wash you hands of both the mothers and the children?"  I got this response from someone I'll call LDP (short for the way he describes himself "Liberal Democratic Pro-Lifer
        In response to a challenge I gave him and which I reprint below, LDP wrote to me :
"I am truly shocked, (Ray), that you would suggest that any other person - especially a person whom you have never met and whose temperament and life situation you really have no clue about - should adopt even one child.  Your earlier comments told me that you had a real concern for children, but I have to say that this suggestion - that I should adopt a child or some children - simply because I am on the Pro-Life side of the abortion debate - is truly shocking.  For all you know, I may be a person who would not take parenting seriously and who would severely neglect any child I would adopt.  Would you advocate placing children in the homes of people simply because those people are Pro-Life?  Or are you making the assumption that all Pro-Life people must be good parent material?"

        My response was:  "Your excuse is really creative, namely I am at fault, for suggesting that you adopt without knowing in advance if you were fully qualified.  That's a hoot.  You already know that I have adopted 5 children, so why wouldn't I know what you would have to go through to succeed in adopting children.  My question wasn't about how many you were qualified to adopt, but how many you desired to adopt.  Now, you ignored the fact that I gave you three choices.  Given the fact that you ruled out the first, and didn't volunteer the second, my guess is that your choice is the one that most pro-lifers make, i.e. # 3: "go your merry way and wash your hands of both the mothers and the children."   (but only after making sure that those mothers are not allowed the option of escaping the multitude of consequences of their unwanted pregnancy)."

'[The Fuehrer's Guidelines for the Government of the Eastern Territories: ' the Slavs are to work for us. Insofar as we don't need them, they may die. Therefore compulsory vaccination and German health services are superfluous. The fertility of the Slavs is undesirable.] They may use contraceptives And practice abortion, the more the better. . .Active trade in contraceptives ought to be actually encouraged in the Eastern territories, as we could not possibly have the slightest interest in increasing the non-Germanic population."

How dishonest it is to use such a quote to suggest that Hitler and the Nazi's were "pro-choice" when the following shows that the Nazis were actually "pro-life" when it came to the lives they identified with , i.e. Aryan Christian life:
        SS chief Heinrich Himmler wrote to Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel the following in 1939:

"According to statistics there are 600,000 abortions a year in Germany. The fact that these happen among the best German racial types has been worrying me for years. The way I see it we cannot afford to lose these young people, hundreds and thousands of them. The aim of protecting this German blood is of the highest priority. If we manage to stop these abortions we will be able to have 200 more German regiments every year on the march. Another 500,000 or 600,000 people could produce millions of marks for the economy. The strength of these soldiers and workers will build the greater Germany. This is why I founded Lebensborn in 1936. It fights abortions in a positive way. Every woman can have her child in peace and quiet and devote her life to the betterment of the race."

Here's a great video about the campaign of MIS-information that has been conducted in the anti-choice so-called "Crisis prevention Centers"

Here's a great article on The Republican Party's legislative "war on women".

        Here is a link to a book by a very conservative Protestant pastor who has come to view the R.C. involvement in the pro-life cause as a way to convert non-Catholics to their church :
More Than These, a book designed to show how the "Pro-Life" movement has been a sneaky way to advance the cause of Roman Catholicism.

Until the day that it was learned that the person arrested for the killing of Dr. George Tiller, at the Sunday service where the doctor was serving as an usher, the Operation Rescue web site featured the post below by "Scott Roeder" dated almost 2 years to the day in connection with an Operation Rescue pro-life prayer vigil in Witchita, Kansas.

        "Bless everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp. Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn�t seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller."

If "pro-life" activists really believed that abortion is "murder" or "infanticide", they would support capital punishment for mothers who ask doctors to murder this children for them. But as the video below shows very forcefully, their actions speak louder than their words and prove that they don't believe their own rhetoric! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD97OVJ4PNw

The Seven Most Common Lies About Abortion

"Chances are, you know someone who has had an abortion. Statistically, it's a near-certainty: In the U.S., one in three women will have an abortion by the age of 45. But despite how incredibly common abortion is, it remains mired in stigma and misinformation. Much of what we may think we know about this subject is actually outright lies told by abortion opponents to dissuade women out of seeking safe and legal abortion care.
       Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs), which are fake clinics run by opponents of abortion, are well-known for lying to clients in order to convince them not to seek abortion care. But the lies told within the walls of CPCs aren't just contained there; they are part and parcel of the anti-abortion movement in the U.S. For a movement that so fervently claims that "truth is on our side," they seem perfectly willing to proliferate blatant lies about abortion. Here are a select few of the most common and pervasive of those lies.
       Read Janet Reitman's RS feature on the stealth war on abortion rights.

1. "Abortion Causes Breast Cancer."

This lie about abortion is one of the most widely circulated. It's commonly cited by abortion opponents and CPC employees as a means of scaring patients out of choosing abortion. Unfortunately for them, the link between abortion and breast cancer simply isn't corroborated by any current, reliable medical evidence. In 2003, the National Cancer Institute conducted a workshop with more than 100 of the world's leading experts on pregnancy and breast cancer risk, and they found that "induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk." This was corroborated by a 2009 study by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which demonstrated that recent, rigorous, methodologically-sound studies display "no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer."

2. "Abortion causes infertility."

This lie is a staple of CPCs to try and dissuade women from undergoing abortions. Just like the lie about abortion and breast cancer, this fear-mongering doesn't have any legitimate medical basis, either. According to the Mayo Clinic, "abortion isn't thought to cause fertility issues or complications in subsequent pregnancies." What's more, the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights, found that abortions performed in the first trimester "pose virtually no long-term risk" of infertility.

3. "Most women regret having an abortion."

Statistically speaking, some women will regret having an abortion. But the fact is, the vast majority don't cite regret as their main emotion after an abortion; it's relief. A recent study at the University of California, San Francisco found that 90 percent of women who were able to obtain an abortion reported that they were relieved and those who did cite negative emotions after their abortion didn't indicate that they felt they had made the wrong choice. In that study, 80 percent of women who experienced mostly negative emotions still felt that abortion was the right choice for them. This anti-abortion talking point is deceitful and reductive, and it doesn't allow for women to share their nuanced, personal abortion experiences.

4. "Once a woman sees an image of the embryo from an ultrasound, she won't want to have an abortion."

The logic behind this anti-abortion lie has helped fuel the wave of paternalistic and invasive forced ultrasound legislation in much of the U.S. Even though 23 states currently regulate the provision of ultrasound by abortion providers in some way, viewing an ultrasound doesn't stop women from having an abortion. Not even close. According to a recent study featured in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal, of the 40 percent of women who chose to view their ultrasound, 98.4 percent still went through with their abortion. Mandated ultrasounds aren't just onerous and intrusive; they're also incredibly ineffective at preventing abortion.

5. "Abortion is psychologically damaging to women."

Abortion opponents frequently tout the official-sounding "Post-Abortion Syndrome" (sometimes called "Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome") as proof that those who undergo an abortion procedure will suffer emotionally and psychologically. The trouble is, there's no such thing as "Post-Abortion Syndrome." It's a myth. It isn't recognized by either the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association. It is not a medical term because it is not a medical reality. The American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion decisively states that there is "no evidence that having a single abortion causes mental health problems."

6. "TRAP laws are really about making abortion safer for women."

Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider (TRAP) laws have become incredibly popular legislatively in the last three years, with copycat legislation springing up in states from Texas to Ohio. Examples include requiring abortion clinics to be Ambulatory Surgical Centers, requiring that all abortions performed past a certain point be done in a hospital, or requiring all abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. On the surface, these sound like benevolent requirements, but in practice, they are completely medically unnecessary and serve only to shutter otherwise functional abortion providers, which is the entire point. While abortion opponents claim that these laws simply make abortion care safer for patients, in reality they do no such thing. TRAP laws are designed to impose onerous and completely unnecessary requirements on abortion providers in order to achieve one goal: close down abortion clinics. So far, they've been remarkably successful. Since TRAP laws surfaced in 2010, more than 50 safe abortion clinics have closed. For a movement that claims it wants to prevent the next Kermit Gosnell from performing illegal and unsafe abortions, TRAP laws all but ensure that safe clinics disappear and unsafe, illegal ones abound.

7. "Abortion endangers women's health and lives."