But while lying in bed last night, I decided ... this is my blog. And when it comes to the topic of abortion, I feel so incredibly strongly, that I cannot let myself be silenced.
If you feel differently, I must respect that. But I can also say I disagree. More specifically if you tell me that while you support my viewpoint on abortion, other issues are more important and you must vote on them, I definitey respect that. In a two-party candidate system, you just don't get a whole lot of options. Obviously if you are pro-life and pro-Obama and there was a man who was Obama who was pro-life, you'd vote for him. But that doesn't exist. So we much choose.
I do not hate President Obama. He is our President. He deserves my respect. But I do not think he has the answers for our country. I don't believe any man has the answers.
I do not believe Mitt Romney has all the answers. And I don't really like Romney all that much if I'm being honest. I definitely do not think he has the answers for our country either.
But I have decided to vote based on the fact that I believe abortion is murder. And I must do everything I can to stop those murders from happening.
If you do not believe that abortion is murder, I challenge you to watch the video I am attaching here: The Truth About Abortion Video. I am warning you. It is very graphic. You will find it difficult to watch. The images will stick with you. Do not watch it if these things bother you. (I could only watch half of it.)
I know many of my very good friends who have had abortions. Some of you have shared this with me. Some of you, I am sure, have not. You know, of course, that I see you as no greater sinner than me. We are all sinners, saved by grace. I harbor no animosity to individuals who have abortions. That is not what this is about.
What it is about is putting someone in office who will not support abortion. Years ago, when abortions were first done legally, no one dreamed they would be done up until the last day of pregnancy for any reason at all. But they are. Right now, in Maryland, an abortion is allowed, for any reason at all, at any moment of pregnancy. People do not know this. We need to know this. When the 2007 U.S. Supreme Counrt decision upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortion came down, President Obama was quoted as saying, "I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women." This means that he supports a woman ending the life of her full-term infant, even though there are families lined up who would take that child home and love them forever.
I believe as Christians, most of us believe abortion is wrong. But we believe it is someone else's problem. I have to disagree. If 4,000 military personnel were dying every day, we would be outraged. And yet, according to The Center for Bioethical Reform, that is exactly what is happening in America. Here are the stats on abortion:
- Approximately 42 Million performed each year (1.37 million in the U.S.)
- Approximately 115,000 performed each day (3,700 in the U.S.)
- 52% of women obtaining abortions are younger than 25 (something to really think about when most research indicates we are not fully mature until 25 or 26.)
- 38% of these abortions are being done on people in the $30,000-$59,999 financial income bracket. nearly 14% are being done on women making over $60,000. This is not something secluded to the poor.
- We talk so often about rape or incest being a reason for abortion. Or the health of the mother. But in fact, only 1% of abortions are done because of rape or incest. And only 6% are done beacause of the health of the mother. 93% of all abortions occur because of social reasons (unwanted, inconvenient, etc.)
- 48% of all abortion facilities provide services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 out of 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. 14% of abortions in the United States are being paid for with public funds. 16 states will pay for abortions for poor women.
Some examples of Obama's actions:
- January 2009: Issued an executive order overturning a ban on federal funds for organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries. His order reversed what is known as the Mexico City policy.
- January 2009: Restored funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), a U.N. agency that supports China's population control program which includes forced abortions.
- March 2009: Nominated Kathleen Sebelius to be secretary of Health and Human Services. As Kansas governor, Sebelius had vetoed several pro-life bills, including one that would have placed limits on late-term abortions. Since being confirmed as HHS secretary, she spoke at a fundraiser for NARAL Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group.
- December 2009: Signed into law a bill that allowed government funding for abortions in the District of Columbia.
- December 2009: Endorsed a Senate version of the health care bill that included taxpayer funding for abortion as part of a public option. The bill that became law did not include a public option.
- March 2010: Signed the landmark health care bill into law. It includes federal subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion.
- May 2010: Nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court. Pro-life groups said Kagan's record indicated she would uphold Roe v. Wade. Pro-choice groups endorsed her.
- August 2011: Announced, through his Health and Human Services Department, that insurance plans must cover contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs as part of the new health care law. The mandate, which went into effect in August 2012, exempts churches but not religious organizations such as Christian schools, hospitals and charities.
- October 2011: Threatened to veto a bill that included a section eliminating federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider.
- Summer/fall 2012: Launched a political TV ad campaign that makes his pro-choice views a major theme of the general election. No Democratic nominee had ever made abortion a major general election theme in TV ads.
Romney was originally pro-choice. However, in 2005 he switched to pro-life when he vetoed a bill that would have allowed pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill without a prescription to minors! (This is bad on so many levels -- giving a drug without a prescription? Are you kidding me?! And giving it to people without parental support?! When is this ever okay? What are we afraid of in this country. Are we afraid of mothers, like Joan, helping their daughter, like Bri, make a choice that will allow a woman, like me, to have a son, like Isaac?
"I am pro-life," Romney wrote. "I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
Romney added, "You can't be a pro-life governor in a pro-choice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born."
I could not agree more. I cannot imagine what a mother of limited means must feel when she finds out she is pregnant. However, I wonder if we could consider helping her have this child (adoption agencies will) and helping her place this child in a family that would want a baby more than anything in the world -- instead of making it free for her to have an abortion. I wonder if we coudl give her an ultrasound so that she could see what a baby looks like when its heart is beating. I wonder if we could let her meet 29-year-old Wendi -- who would have done anything to raise the child she is thinking of killing as my own.
Some things that Mr. Romney has stated:
- that he believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade -- a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
- that he supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions.
- that he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. (Yes! Could we instead consider helping poor families adopt with tax incentives and credits?!)
- that he will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work.
- that we will never hear a President Romney or his vice president tell the Chinese government that 'I fully understand' and won't 'second guess' compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.
Please note that you are more than welcome to leave a comment. However, we must be very careful not to bash people in any form or fashion for their differing viewpoints. This is not what this is about. I agree that Mitt Romney is not the man who will save our world. Our country. Only Jesus can do that. I am simply saying that if you don't know who to vote for because neither person sounds great, I wanted to share with you why I was going to vote, absentee ballot for Mitt Romney.
Thanks all!
26 comments:
I struggle with this issue as someone who spent two decades dealing with infertility, and who now has a beautiful five-year-old son whose existence still never fails to amaze and delight me. But for me, what it comes down to is more a matter of what is considered abortion; if I am 18 weeks pregnant and develop a condition (placental abruption, for example) that means I have to choose either to end a pregnancy (because viability is not a possibility) or die, I would end the pregnancy. I could not choose to leave my existing son without his mother. I know someone who had to make exactly that decision, and it was heartwrenching, but it was certainly not murder, from my perspective; it was the result of weighing several awful possibilities and choosing what was best for all of her family.
Personally I think abortion is a personal, private, and medical decision. Neither politicians nor any others should have any say in the matter for other people.
That being said, here's my take on voting. If abortion is your only criteria for choosing whom you vote for, you could end up with very incompetent, uninformed, unskilled people in public office. The office of president of the US has nothing directly to do with abortion but has great responsibility for national security, foreign policy, education,human rights, the economy, and many other matters. His (or her) experience and ability in these areas should determine whom you vote for.
Paula, I agree with you completely. To me, when a mother's health is in question, we are talking about something COMPLETELY different. But those cases (incest, rape, and mother's help are under %10 of the case. This is the very small portion of abortions.
To anonymous, I understand what you are saying. However, what I am saying is that we really only have two choices of who to vote for. I do not think EITHER man has the answers. I think they are both offering different ideas to try and reach the same goal. I do not think either is way better or way worse.
(Although, in an entirely separate issue, I am against big government so that would lead me more toward Romney.)
All things being equal, I am picking THIS issue to focus on. I agree that we could end up with a very incompetent person but this is where we must "trust" (if that is possible) the parties who pick this particular person to be their running person and also we must "trust" the checks and balances which are in place.
I agree that it's a small percentage, but as my OB said about some possible complication we were discussing at the end of my pregnancy, it's only small until it's you--then it's 100%. I agree with Anonymous that abortion is personal, private, and medical. Not someone else's decision to make for my family, and certainly not mine to make for someone else.
As far as voting, I am really torn. I don't care for either candidate. Ironically, abortion may end up being a deciding factor for me as well, but in the opposite direction.
Paula, I am confused by your statement. There is no danger, anywhere, that abortion will be delagalized for the sake of the mother's health. Medically speaking, even Christian physicians agree that this is a personal decision.
However, in all other aspects, I can't see how we can support a candidate (Obama in this case) who is for spending our money to make abortion NOT private (planned parenthood, etc.)
Again, I appreciate the healthy and polite dialogue! God Bless!
I'm not comfortable supporting the banning of abortion for any reason; I guess that's why my post was confusing. During the years I spent dealing with infertility I think I either didn't give it a lot of thought, or I assumed that it was something I would never be able to support, given my own struggle to have a baby, but ironically it was becoming a parent that changed my thinking. I am not pro-abortion--I don't know anyone who is--but I am definitely in favor of each person's having the ability to make their own decision.
I really enjoy your blog, and this isn't something I normally talk about because it can get so inflammatory. I appreciate being able to "talk" about it minus the flames!
Obviously, I'm not gonna try to dissuade you or change your mind, but I'll give you my opinion on this, just for the sake of it. ;) (I apologize for the length... :/)
Unfortunately, this is just another polarizing issue that is mostly used by politicians of both parties, to divide voters. The truth is, that from a legal standpoint, the amount of steps that need to be taken, and things that need to happen to illegalize abortion in the United States can not be done by one man (namely, the President), in four years (or even eight), and much less just because he says he will.
Of the 100 steps that need to be taken, one of them will be, that the Supreme Court will have to overrule Roe v. Wade, and that will not happen under the current Justices. (We know this from their current standpoint, the parties that named them, and mainly, because they have stated so.)
The laws in this country are incredibly intertwined within different areas, (hence why you would find laws about cattle on property contract law, or tax modifications on a healthcare law, for example.) There are therefore many ramifications to eliminating funding for female-health clinics that will 'tricle down' (no pun intended ;) onto the poor, underserved communities that have no other means of receiving PAP Smears, sexual education, or pre-natal care, to name a few. The loopholes (or rather 'wormholes') that illegalizing abortion in its entirety would create, (if it were even possible), are just too immense and diverse to comprehend, without a thorough evaluation of every single law in the United States that has a 'clause' related to abortion or woman's health.
I am also a fan of small government. However, from my point of view, a government that restricts (or eliminates) already established rights, rather than expanding them, is the best example of a big government. (This is why in Federal Constitutional Law, the States only have 'legroom' to enact laws that extend the rights of their citizens, not restrict or eliminate them.) The illegalization of abortion will not only eliminate an established constitutional right, but also will not entirely prevent them, nor will it prevent death: We will then be once again plagued by the 'teen-with-a-coat-hanger-in-a-back-alley' syndromes in the ER's.
I can tell you this: from a moral standpoint, I completely agree with you. I will never be in favor of 'convenience' abortions. The same goes for wars, dumping waste in the oceans, or a 'free for all' approach to gun control. I consider all of these to be agents of violence, that only bring pain, suffering and death just the same. However, I realize all these things are legal in our country, whether I agree with them or not, or I believe them to be moral or not. The only way to get rid of these 'agents of violence' is through education, both in the home and the community; guiding our children and our youth into what we believe to be the way of God; loving others and teaching by example.
Now, from a legal standpoint, I would have to disagree with you. It is my view that the campaign promises that a future President is able to fulfill, far outweigh those he definitely cannot. And in this case, Mr. Romney's foreign policy is something he has made very clear from the start, and something he very much has control over, in the event he becomes President. A "doing everything possible to prevent WWIII" ( v. "maybe try to stop abortions"), is going to definitely win my vote.
PS: I know you're still my friend even though we thing differently...what I don't know is if you'll be my friend after I just filled 3 pages worth of comments on your blog.. lol!
I agree, wholeheartedly, 100%.
And I should have made it clear in my first comment that what/who I am agreeing with is your original blog post, Wendi.
You are really brave to address this issue, even though as you said this is your blog and you should feel comfortable saying anything you want to here. I am also someone who has very strong political convictions that I rarely discuss with people other than those nearest and dearest to me. I am not sure who I'll be voting for yet, and abortion stance is not on my list of issues at all. As someone who did face an unexpected pregnancy while in college and then devastating secondary infertility years later I have actually had to make the choice of whether or not to have a baby when I was little more than a child myself (almost 20). Almost everyone around me wanted me to not have my child, so that I could finish school. My then boyfriend-now husband and I agonized over the decision. I ultimately decided I could not abort my baby, and my 16 year old son is the best surprise I ever received. The blessing of him opened my eyes to my true calling in life, being a mother. And I finished school and had the life I wanted even being a young mother. I consider myself pro-choice, though I find the use of abortion as some sort of birth control abhorrent! It is a deeply personal decision and I feel it should only ever be between a woman, her partner and her doctor. I respect your opinion and while mine differs slightly I think it is great you are open to letting anyone express their feelings on your space.
Wendi, I totally agree. As Christians we may not be able to end abortion ourselves, but we can certainly vote for someone who values human life and shares our convictions.
The problem with the argument that abortion is a "personal" decision is that abortion's ramifications stretch far beyond the mother. What about the father's choice? What about the family waiting to adopt? What about the grandparent who would willingly raise the child? What about the child who deserves a chance at life? Abortion (of convience) is not a personal decision, it is a selfish one.
Casey
Thank you for writing about this issue and it's importance. I desperately wish that people would stop calling abortion a "personal decision" when it's clearly ending someone else's life. It's not bigger government to have laws against abortion; killing an innocent person has always been illegal! Unfortunately, our society got self-centered enough to decide that that the voiceless no longer deserved that protection. It truly is tragic. While I realize it's true that no one President is going to get the laws reversed on his own, there will never be any progress made as long as we put pro-abortion candidates in office. And as my mother-in-law so wisely said one day, "No social program or benefit offered is worth the lives of all those babies." We have to speak up, and our vote is one way to do it.
I had an abortion at 21 weeks. The baby was "not compatible with life." She was dying and there was zero chance of saving her. If late term abortion were illegal, I would very possibly have been forced to carry a dead baby for another 4 months. Abortions take place for all sorts of reasons. Some good, some not. Counseling and offers of help are, in my opinion, a far better way to reach people.
To anonymous, i am so sorry that you had to face this decision at 21 weeks. I would never want to make it. However, I am not, ever, calling for an end to this. No one is. I do not believe that abortions will ever be illegalized. What I do want is someone in office who will stop the tide from rolling further in the wrong direction. I believe that if we continue to put someone in office who believes that chinas forced sterilization is acceptable, the sky will be the limit for where we can go.
And actually patty, I do agree with you friend. I am not hoping for an end to abortion. But simply an end to the pattern. I'd like to at least see convenience partial birth eliminated. Small steps.
Dear People,
My name is George and I am Wendi's Dad. I have read all your posts and comments regarding abortion and am definitely impressed that a discussion on such a volatile topic can be done so decently and in such cogent order. We need people like you all in office...please think about running!
That said, this comment is going to address abortion in a manner which has largely been ignored by pro-choice Americans. It is a great source of sadness to me that over the years it has become more and more obvious that the original foundations of our country have been under constant attack. One of the attacks is heard in the voices of pro-choice proponents who talk about "rights." They push a woman's "right" to choose; they talk about health care as it relates to contraception and abortion as a "right" that other Americans must finance...because it is every woman's CONSTITUTIONAL "right!" What they refuse to acknowledge; however, is that our founding documents declare loud and clear that Americans have been endowed by the CREATOR with these inalienable "rights." The origin of the rights (that every citizen of the human race possesses) is spiritual in nature. The rights came from God!
Here is the truth. The Bible says that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14.) That God "knew us before we were formed in our mother's womb" (Jeremiah 1:5.) Indeed it states that God knew us before the creation of the world. These truths speak to the exquisite beauty of God's view of sexuality and pro-creation. In truth, if God knew each of you BEFORE you were conceived, then where WERE you before you were conceived? The truth? You were "in God!" Do you understand what this means in terms of sex? Sex is Holy... it is Godly...it is deeply spiritual in its nature. When your parents conceived you, your father and mother contributed the genetic DNA; but at the moment of conception, God planted the spiritual DNA. A conceived human being is at once one with all three, father, mother, and God! Totally and completely awesome! Your opinion of what conception is does not change the truth, any more than if you thought 9 x 9 = 173. It's still 81 no matter what answer you put on the paper.
And then let me discus another spiritual truth which is almost too scary to talk about; but it must be observed. God is LOVE, and he is all about family, and unity, and agreement. He calls His Church the "Body of Christ," and He does this for a reason; he wants His people to be ONE in the Lord Jesus! In that light, did you know that if I contribute financially to the evangelistic efforts of a missionary (or any preacher of the gospel, for that matter,) that God considers this a partnership, and His rewards for any people who get saved are going to be equally shared by everyone in the partnership? Read the book of Philippians closely and you'll see this. The preacher gives his or her life in the form of their time to this effort, and the financier give his or her life in the form of money to the effort. The scary part is that if I VOTE for or contribute my money to a pro-choice candidate, I am aligning myself with THAT platform; I am in agreement with it, and all the abortions that are done are credited to me under this spiritual truth. Many would say, "Well, I don't agree with that!" Your opinion of the truth does not change the ACTUAL truth.
-- George
To those of you who are talking about "medical" reasons for abortion, please know that these are NOT what I am talking about at all. You are the exception. You are the LESS THAN 10% of the abortions. In the country of Turkey, abortion IS their main form of birth control. It is these abortions that I have a problem with. Anyone who has to make a choice between their own health/life and that of their child has my utmost respect, and I am not about to judge them ... ever.
I am however, talking about individuals who are choosing to have abortions for no medical reason whatsoever.
Casey: I totally agree with your comment:
"The problem with the argument that abortion is a "personal" decision is that abortion's ramifications stretch far beyond the mother. What about the father's choice? What about the family waiting to adopt? What about the grandparent who would willingly raise the child? What about the child who deserves a chance at life? Abortion (of convience) is not a personal decision, it is a selfish one."
Paula, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to dialogue openly and so please allow me to ask you an honest question.
Outside of issues of mother's health or baby's healt or incest or rape ...
... what I don't understand is the viewpoint that it is murder to kill a baby the moment they are out of the womb. But when they are in the womb it is considered perfectly okay. I wonder if, from your perspective, you could help me understand the "other's side" view on this?
If the baby was simply removed from the womb, alive, and given to another family ... wouldn't that be better? How does a woman get to choose to let her child live or die when inside her but if she let's her die in a toilet it is murder? I just can't wrap my mind around that one.
Again, I am no intending this sarcastically WHATSOEVER. I am genuinely trying to understand.
I'm not sure what Paula's answer will be, but the problem with allowing it in some circumstances but not others is who draws those lines. I don't know as much about the American context, but in Canada for example, prior to 1988, abortion was only permitted where a woman could get the approval of a hospital therapeutic abortion committee saying that the pregnancy would be a threat to her health (which included mentalhealth ). You then had hospitals whose doctors were opposed to abortions who refused to form these committees, or only had these committees meet once per month (which can be problematic with abortions), or only approve a certain number of abortions per year, or they imposed additional requirements not required by law (like spousal permission), etc. I am still pro-choice, but even if I wasn't, standards such as a threat to a woman's health or even rape (i.e. where it was one's spouse) are not completely clear. I would be concerned that doctors (or whoever else was tasked with determining whether a woman met the criteria for an abortion) who were pro-life would apply the criteria in a way that would deny women who met your criteria the procedure.
Raina...lots of people don't think a fetus is a "person" and that's how they don't see it as personal choice trumping life.
I agree with the previous commenter re: making exceptions. Who gets to decide where the line is drawn when it comes to the exceptions?
Your dad quoted the Scripture as reference, wouldn't those same verses still apply to pregnancies that were medically unsafe, or the result of incest/rape? If a pregnancy that a woman is considering to end for non-medical reasons should be carried to term based on that religious evidence that God chose her to have that pregnancy, wouldn't a pregnancy as the result of rape also be given to her by God?
This double-sided thing is something I struggle with regularly in my personal relationship with God, just in a more general way not specific to abortion.
I would never choose abortion for myself, and I would do my best to keep my daughter from choosing abortion. But if I value my freedom of religion, I can't force my religious beliefs onto someone else. And as Patty mentioned, there are too many other issues at stake to base my vote on something so personal
I agree with Patty. I have been trying to figure out how to word my opinion on the matter and her response is pretty much what I would say-just much more organized!
I just wanted to make sure you knew that Paul Ryan co-sponsored a bill that would make IVF ILLEGAL; yet force a woman to bear a child conceived of via rape. So: a woman wants desperately to have a child and must use IVF and cannot (!) but a woman is raped and gets pregnant and must...makes zero sense. And this is the guy you would vote to be one heartbeat away from presidency?
I did IVF five separate times and it never worked. I'm now the happiest of happy adoptive mothers via international adoption of two infants. But imagine if it had been illegal for me to pursue IVF...sheesh. And yes, I realize I'm commenting extremely late.
Anonymous: while I do not know the specifics of Ryan (as you write), I do know that he has said that he is much more conservative than Romney but will align with the Romney ticket. In addition, he is the VP, not President. I totally see where you are coming from on this, however, we operate in a two-party system. (In other words, I don't think anyone is perfect here.) Obama is a radically pro-abortion President who shamelessly passed the largest expansion of abortion in history. He gives BILLIONS to planned parenthood which I think MUST STOP. And now, with Obamacare, I am outraged by the fact that Christians may have to pay for abortions in another way. He also placed two overtly pro-abortion judges on the Supreme Court. These things weigh heavily on the other side for me.
Thanks for your late contribution however. I think a dialogue is great!
Post a Comment