DEVTOME.COM HOSTING COSTS HAVE BEGUN TO EXCEED 115$ MONTHLY. THE ADMINISTRATION IS NO LONGER ABLE TO HANDLE THE COST WITHOUT ASSISTANCE DUE TO THE RISING COST. THIS HAS BEEN OCCURRING FOR ALMOST A YEAR, BUT WE HAVE BEEN HANDLING IT FROM OUR OWN POCKETS. HOWEVER, WITH LITERALLY NO DONATIONS FOR THE PAST 2+ YEARS IT HAS DEPLETED THE BUDGET IN SHORT ORDER WITH THE INCREASE IN ACTIVITY ON THE SITE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS. OUR CPU USAGE HAS BECOME TOO HIGH TO REMAIN ON A REASONABLE COSTING PLAN THAT WE COULD MAINTAIN. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE DEVTOME PROJECT AND KEEP THE SITE UP/ALIVE PLEASE DONATE (EVEN IF ITS A SATOSHI) TO OUR DEVCOIN 1M4PCuMXvpWX6LHPkBEf3LJ2z1boZv4EQa OR OUR BTC WALLET 16eqEcqfw4zHUh2znvMcmRzGVwCn7CJLxR TO ALLOW US TO AFFORD THE HOSTING.

THE DEVCOIN AND DEVTOME PROJECTS ARE BOTH VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO ITS FURTHER SUCCESS FOR ANOTHER 5 OR MORE YEARS!

Can Pro Life And Pro Choice Individuals Or Tribes Ever Find Any Common Ground?

abortiondebate1.jpg

Oh, East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet… – Rudyard Kipling

The gulf between individuals who want to outlaw abortion and those who want to keep it legal seems so truly vast, one wonders if the two sides, or even a single member from each side, could ever find common ground, and work together.

The individuals who want to ban abortions call those who want to keep it legal, as being, “pro abortion.” Those who wish to keep abortions legal, refer to those who disagree with them, as being, “anti choice.”

The prohibitionists call themselves, “pro life,” as if to infer that anyone who disagrees with them is anti life. If there is an, anti choice inference toward the prohibitionists, no offense is taken, because they freely admit to being anti choice. They will tell you that it's not a choice, it's a baby.

A lot of individuals who don't want to see abortion become outlawed again in the United States, take umbrage at the thought of being considered as anti life. For that matter, many also don't identify with being pro abortion. They are pro, the right for each woman to decide.

It's not is if the thought of abortion makes them happy. I wonder how many of the prohibitionists realize that many of the most ardent activists to keep abortion legal would, in almost no circumstance, ever have an abortion themselves. (If they are male, you could say the point is moot, but not entirely. They would almost never try to influence their pregnant partner to have an abortion.)

In fact, I'm sure there are actually a lot of these strident activists to prevent the prohibition of abortion, for whom you could take, “almost,” out of the equation… (Well, for the most part. There is one equation where everybody seems to allow for abortion. We will cover it momentarily. It is an area that might lead to the two sides realizing there is some common ground.)

The point here is that there is probably a shockingly large percentage of pro choicers who are personally (in their own lives) against abortion in most circumstances. They would be very much open to work side by side with pro lifers to prevent abortions, based on free will, education, winning hearts and minds – as opposed to using dictatorial authoritarianism, and mental brute force imposition of personal views, upon those who hold a different opinion.

If the pro life prohibitionists really believe that all abortion at any point after conception is the same as killing babies, and if their goal is really to stop as many abortions as possible, one would think that they would jump at the chance to work with activists who may disagree on the legality aspect, but with whom very much desire to prevent the need for abortions. Wouldn't you?

From what this writer can see, there don't seem to be any abortion prohibitionists willing to agree to disagree on the prohibition issue for the sake of dramatically curtailing the number of unborn babies who are, “murdered in their mother's wombs.” Frankly, I find it uber distressing.

If you haven't picked up on it yet, I'm an individual who is against most abortions and I understand that most abortions can be prevented. It would be so heartening to find abortion prohibitionists who are willing to work with people like me to cut down on the number of totally needless abortions.

What I get, when I try to engage in these common ground/work together conversations, is in-yo-face debates where the pro lifers are not interested in finding any common ground with me, unless I am willing to succumb to their beliefs. We can't even talk, because they want to control my thinking and my speech.

For instance, I wrote above, “It would be so heartening to find abortion prohibitionists who are willing to work with people like me to cut down on the number of totally needless abortions.” The conversation would get bogged down in trying to force me to admit that no abortion is ever needed.

If, to keep the conversation moving, I withdraw the term, “totally needless,” they take that as proof that I know they are right, as opposed to me trying to simply get to the part where we find common ground, and then they refuse to deal with my desired goal of drastically curtailing abortions.

I'm asked, if I think abortions are so wonderful, why is there a need to drastically curtail them? Why not work to have more women have more abortions?

To a person, they seem to be hellbent on merely winning arguments, when I'm trying to provide a vision that could create actual circumstances where people who have disagreements on the legality issue, can actually work together and do something about stopping most abortions.

Perhaps there are some pro lifers out there that will see where people like me are coming from and would be willing to stop demanding that we see the error of our ways, and simply join forces and work with us to prevent abortions in tandem with each other. I have not given up hope.

And it's not even specifically about teaming up with me, personally. There are millions of people like me out there, in the United States and around the world. Look for us and be willing to find common ground.

Quit calling us murderers and acting like you have all the answers to the mysteries of life, (like exactly when does life begin), just because you grew up in a religion that told you how to think. (Yes, I”m generalizing, but for the most part, I'm accurate here.)

You know what this reminds me of? It would be like if gay people wanted to join the Republican party. (I don't know why anyone would want to be a Repooplican or Democrap, but, for the sake of illustration, please bear with me.)

So the gay person goes to a meeting and wants to sign up, but he says. “I disagree with you guys on gay marriage. I'll work with you on most other issues, but on gay marriage, you'll see me passing out fliers with the Democrats.”

Would it make sense for the Republicans to kick the guy out and tell him not to come back until he comes to his senses and realizes that civil unions is all that gays should need? Or should they welcome him and work together on their areas of common ground?

Or how about this? They sit the guy down and argue with him for hours upon hours, showing him how incredibly wrong and misguided he is about gay marriage. They just keep talking to him until they are blue in the face, instead of spending those hours working with him, passing out fliers for the upcoming voter ID referendum, or some such thing.

For those of you reading this who are like me, in that you do not want to prohibit abortion, but you would like to work together with “pro lifers” to help drastically reduce abortions, I urge you to have these kinds of conversations with individuals in that tribe, and see if you can find some who are willing to find common ground with you.

One way to possibly find some common ground is to agree with them in one area and see if you can get them to agree with you in another. You could say something like, “I find there are extremes on both sides of this issue that don't make a lot of sense. For instance on my side, there are people who say that until a baby is born it's fair game for abortion. To me, that is ridiculous to think that the day before a baby is born you should be able to kill it in the womb and think nothing of it.”

Then, when they agree with you, say; “On the other hand, on your side, there are people who are adamant that as soon as a couple has unprotected sex, if the woman took a morning after pill, it would be the same thing as murdering a newborn, or even, older baby. Don't you agree that that is just as much a case of being extreme, as the person who thinks that abortion a few hours before labor isn't a problem?”

By the way, it can take a number of hours to a number of days after sexual intercourse for conception to happen, so in many, if not most cases, taking the morning after pill doesn't even stop a life, any more than a condom. Now there are quite a few prohibitionists, who also are against condoms.

If they had their way, they would outlaw them and punish anybody who practices birth control. Yes, they are extremists, but they exist, and while they may not constitute a large parentage of the pro life contingent, they probably number in the millions.

Does that seem like a scarey thought to you? It does to me, but then, I find it scarey to think that there are pro choicers, maybe in the millions, who would say that as long as birth has yet to happen, it's fair game.

When these kinds of conversations take place with regularity by members of both sides of the equation, that can be the start of finding common ground. Another area of common ground is the topic of tubal pregnancies.

I have heard of women having babies even though they were raped. I've heard of women having babies even though they knew they were going to be hideously deformed, or deathly sick. I've heard of women who had babies even though it was extremely painful, and many would say cruel to the baby, and the baby would not live, long – but I have yet to hear of a woman who had a tubal (or otherwise ectopic) pregnancy, who did not allow herself to have a “surgery” that just so happens to end the life of her baby, while potentially saving her own life. She might even have lived if she didn't have that “surgery.” There's no way to tell beforehand.

Who knows? There might be a woman out there, who would be willing to risk dying in a most painful manner, even though her week 5, unborn baby, was also destined to die in her womb, because she believes that it's God will, and that it would be murder to interfere – but such a woman might be one in million, if that.

Think about that!

About two percent of pregnancies in developed nations are ectopic. There are about 4 million births a year in the USA. That means about 40,000 ectopic pregnancies. Pro lifers and pro choicers both say they have the majority of the population, but lets just say that half of the woman with ectopic pregnancies in the US each year are pro lifers. That's 20,000 pro life mothers, each and every single year, who take part in murdering their own babies. It's like Sophie's Choice. But they do it.

Does that sound unfair to you – to state it like that?

The staunch pro life position is that God makes the decision whether or not to bring a baby into this world, and that the mother does not have the choice. Even when it seems like the baby will not make it to birth, they still say it is murder to make that choice to end the pregnancy.

They usually say that God may perform a miracle, and that if the mother hires a hit man abortion doctor to commit homicide upon her unborn baby, then that takes away God's chance to perform a miracle. Indeed, they have instances where babies who weren't supposed to ever make it into this world were not only born, but went on to be normal children and live full adult lives. Miracles happen.

Who is to say that if they were to pray hard enough, and get enough people to form prayer chains, and have the faith of a mustard seed, that God will not miraculously move the baby from the fallopian tube, or wherever it may be, into the uterus, instead of what the doctors say will happen?

The doctors say that God will not perform a miracle, and that the fetus, or unborn baby is going to burst the organ that it is improperly lodged in, and in so doing, will become a miscarriage, and could possibly end the life of the mom to be.

Do you understand my point here?

The pro choicers say that there is a gray area regarding abortion. They say it isn't so simple. There are exceptions where it may be permissible, even in the eyes of the Lord, for human intervention to step in, and and stop the pregnancy that is putting the life of the mother in jeopardy.

The hard core pro lifers say to always pray for Divine intervention and never, ever allow for human intervention to prematurely terminate the pregnancy, but just don't mention the fact that we do this ourselves, tens of thousands of times each year in the USA, alone. We don't want to think about that, but we want to call everyone else murderers.

Like it or not, pro lifers have common ground here with pro choicers. They share a gray area.

I think this bears repeating. If pro lifers don't want to share this gray area with the pro choicers, here is how it works:

If it really is NEVER a choice and it is ALWAYS a baby, then don't kill the baby. Ask God for a miracle. If God takes the baby to heaven, and even the mother, then so be it. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

If God doesn't take the mother, but chooses for her to have incredible pain, when the baby miscarries, pain that is even worse than childbirth (if you can imagine that), then so be it. You can have the mother in the hospital, but you can not do anything to terminate the pregnancy. Once God makes that choice and chooses not to perform the miracle everyone is praying for, then (and only then) you can operate on the mother. Anything short of that is murder by a doctor who deserves to be shot by an pro life hero who should get an award.

It's not murder when God does it, but with human intervention and human choice, it's murder. There is no gray area. Period.

So that's basically the choice for pro lifers to make. Either admit there is some gray area and that you may not have all the answers to life either… Or quit killing your babies, and preventing God from performing a miracle during ectopic/tubal pregnancies.

To conclude, I'd like to offer some other things to think about that might lead to areas of common ground:

Can pro lifers concede that first trimester abortions are a better alternative than third trimester abortions?

Can pro choicers make that same concession as well?

Can pro lifers admit that if they are killing tens of thousands of ectopic babies in the US alone each and every year, that they don't have the wiggle room to talk about people who murder doctors who perform abortions as heroes?

Can pro lifers consider the possibility that it's better to work on changing hearts and minds regarding abortion than to work on changing laws that ultimately would not put an end to abortions, but will end up putting an end to untold thousand's of women's lives via botched back alley abortions, which will make many thousands of children motherless, year in and year out?

Can pro lifers consider that prohibiting abortions might even induce an environment where more abortions happen? [For instance, in the realm of illicit drugs, more drugs laws, arrests and imprisonments has only led to a steady increase in all of the above. Yet Portugal decriminalized drugs, causing drug addition and drug related crime to drop dramatically.]

Is there anything that can be done to prevent abortion operations, like having easy access to the morning after pill so that if a couple has sex without a condom, the woman could take the pill and potentially prevent a pregnancy before conception, or stop it at the pre-fetus, zygote stage?

Is there anything that can be done, like raise abortion awareness, to inspire or otherwise motivate people who are going to have abortions to get them done in the first trimester, or otherwise go through with the pregnancy?

Can there be conversations between parents and your adolescent children that you should abstain, just like you shouldn't drink, but if you don't, you could use alternatives to actual intercourse to prevent pregnancy from happening – much like you can call us for a ride home so you don't drink and drive and we'll discuss the rest later?

Can pro life pharmacists stop refusing to sell the morning after pill because it violates their principles?

Can they admit that by not selling the morning after pill they are actually responsible for actual abortions that will take place in the second or even third trimesters that could have been avoided, possibly before conception?

(If not, could they do the right thing and find another occupation that doesn't allow them to cause late term abortions, please?)

Would it be possible for two person teams, consisting of a pro lifer and a pro choicer who both want to prevent abortions, to go from school to school and present their messages to junior and senior high school kids, and show that while they have disagreements, they respect each other and are totally unified in their understanding that preventing abortion is really important?

Abortion | Issues


QR Code
QR Code can_pro_life_and_pro_choice_individuals_or_tribes_ever_find_any_common_ground (generated for current page)
 

Advertise with Anonymous Ads