Friday, September 05, 2008


I don’t know about you, but as a Christian, as a mom, and as a human being, one of the primary issues for me with regard to the politcal arena will always be the sanctity of life. This issue, more than ever before, has been thrust into the arena after reports that Obama supports not only abortions after conception, but also partial and live birth abortions. Familiar with the term "infanticide"? You will be shocked, google it. This is the term now being applied to live birth abortions. So, we know where Obama stands on abortion, but since I am just getting to know Sarah Palin, I wanted to know where she stands. It goes without saying that she stands with her running mate, Senator John McCain, FOR LIFE. Sarah Palin opposes stem cell research, she is pro-LIFE, she believes that every human being is created by God with a future and potential. She has been quoted as saying that she would "choose life, even if her own daughter were raped". She is pro-contraception and has rejected sympathy for her son Trig, who was born with Down’s Syndrome. “He is a gift from God” Palin said, later saying in a speech that "with some of God's greatest blessings also come some of life's greatest challenges". A McCain/Palin Presidency would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. The only instance where Palin says abortion is an option is when the mother's life is in danger. (more on this later) I believe, as do most conservatives, that this is the primary issue that has turned liberals against Sarah Palin. Were she pro-choice, she would be considered a moderate, and probably would secure a huge number of moderate and even liberal votes...thank God she has taken a strong stand on such a vital issue, even if it loses these votes.

I will add more on this posting as I research her stance on such issues. In the meantime, let's do what we can to support this wife and mother of 5 who clearly has chosen LIFE.

As promised, I have done more research on the abortion issue. One thing that has always bothered me is the exception I hear mentioned in conservative circles regarding the life of the mother. My own feelings about this break my heart for those who are put into the terrible position of having to choose whose life to save. The following has been sent to me by a blogger who wishes to remain anonymous:

"Biblical theology classifies abortion, post fertilization, as murder. Biblical theologians have not distinguished between trimesters for purposes of determining when life begins. “Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb…” (Isaiah 44:2) Therefore, since life is assumed to begin at fertilization, any termination of the developmental process is in contravention of the Divine commandment prohibiting murder (Exodus 20:13). However, when confronted with the decision to sacrifice the life of the mother for the unborn, conservative biblical scholars find an exception.

When considering the question of the moral legitimacy of abortion in the case of preserving the life of the mother, reference must be made to God’s structuring of the family and the role that the husband plays in the family. First, the husband is commanded, in scripture, to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it (Ephesians 5:25). There can be no higher standard of conduct. Second, the family structure is patriarchal and the husband is charged with the wellbeing, both physically and spiritually, of his wife (Ephesians 5:23,28). The husband’s duty is to his wife both scripturally and by dint of the marital vows. Therefore, when the wife’s life is threatened, the husband must choose the life of his spouse, preserving the essential structure of the family and fulfilling his role as protector. The wife’s duty is to reverence her husband and to submit to his authority in the family (Ephesians 5:22-24). In this way, God’s purpose in the family structure is honored. Ultimately, in this narrow circumstance, the question is one of conscience, which can only be answered individually through communion with God in His word."


Anonymous said...

I am pro choice but I am also pro life becasue in addition to my biological son I have had 5 foster kids live with me long term. I took them when they were older and two moved out in their 20's one is still with me and my son and she will be 26 next month.
You know what would be more convincing for women to have their children? Being able to feed them and clothes them. Being able to give them quality healthcare and medicine. Perhaps instead of placcards with dead fetuses, these protestors might show up at clinics with some of the children they have adopted and raised. Show up with the happy and healthy children they have really cared for and not the children that are not here yet.
I am a school teacher in nyc and I have seen more horrible cases than you can imagine. Dont force junkies and mentally ill women to have children. Sometimes a woman does know better than you that she should not be responsible for another life. But if you do force them, I would like to see every one of you have one less biological child and one more forced unwanted child in your families.

Anonymous said...

I would like to comment that it highly unlikely that a McCain/Palin ticket would overturn Roe v Wade (obviously not directly because its a judicial matter) because of Stare Decisis in the courts. Past precedents suggest the court would essentially need 9 judges, not 5 as most people believe (or fear depending on your political view) in order to overturn a landmark case like Roe.

Palin mentioned in her interview with Couric that she didn't like Roe v Wade because of Federalism... ??? Douglas said in his concurrence "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."

I am pro choice, probably voting for Obama, but his position on live birth abortions does bother me. I will do more research. Thanks for your blog.

Filius de Paulus said...

I am a pro-life liberal, yea I said it a PRO-LIFE LIBERAL (I said liberal not Democrat, there is a difference). I think being turely pro-life (anti abortion, anti euthanasia, anti death penalty in America, and pro healthcare) is a very liberal possition. Also, if you all would read some of the documents that the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) and the Vatican have promugated. The Catechism of the Catholic Church talks extensivly about life issues and even gives advice on senarios like the one given in this blog. So I support what you have writen I'm just writing to say there are some more documents out there too, I will ist them as I find them. Ad Iesum Per Mariam!

Postergirl said...

You didn't put up my last post here.. so I just have to dare you to let this one in. You should, since it concerns lowering abortion rates.

So, wouldn't you love to be able to say that United States has the lowest abortion rate out of all industrialized nations? Wouldn't it be great if the U.S. had the lowest incident of teen pregnancies? Well of course it doesn't - the U.S. has one of the highest abortion rates and teenage pregnancy (and birth) rates of any industrialized nation. This isn't opinion, this is statistical fact which can easily be looked up.

The Netherlands has one of the lowest abortion/teen pregnancy/teen birth rates of the world. Why? Because they have accepted the fact that teenagers have sex. In that regard, they have made contraception easily available and schools have very thorough sex education. Sex education that does not rely on abstinence-only. If you truly wanted abortion to be less common, you would support better sex education in schools, and easy and affordable access to contraceptives. Your religious beliefs aside, as far as not wanting your teens to have sex (no one really WANTS that, even liberals), you should support an endeavor like that that truly reduces teen pregnancy and abortion. But I bet you don't. I bet you think that abstinence-only is the answer. Like Palin did. See how well that worked? Like it or not, teenagers are raging with hormones and they have sex. You cannot take the moral high ground and pretend that it doesn't happen, and wishing it doesn't is what has caused this country to have such high teen pregnancy and abortion rates.

I'm sure you would think it's immoral for a school to teach really thoroughly all about sex, and not be shy about it. Because god forbid the teenagers can't POSSIBLY know about it! Of course they do! What many don't know is how to protect themselves, and they rely on wishful thinking instead, thanks to proponents of abstinence-only. So to that I say, shame on you. Shame on you for putting your religious beliefs ahead of the health and well-being of our teens. Shame on you if not supporting what the Netherlands does, if you truly want fewer abortions. If you don't, it means you really don't care about it, you only care about what you 'feel' about sex, abortion and teens, not the facts. Let my post stand, and let's hear some replies.
Oh, and did I mention that the average age when teens start having sex in the Netherlands is also higher than in the U.S.: 17.7 years old.

Postergirl said...

I just wanted to say ‘thank you’ for letting my post in. I DO, despite my disagreement with you on almost every issue, appreciate you letting comments like mine onto your blog, even when I am being adversarial. I am hungry for debate. I am as passionate about the issues in this race as you are. We are just on opposite sides. I live in a community where you would be hard-pressed to find a McCain/Palin supporter. I see a few lone stickers here and there, but there is no one for me to debate with.

The issue of abortion is one that people are so very passionate about. There are lunatics on the left and there are lunatics on the right (that video from the Palin rally in PA for example), who yell and scream and bully. But that kind of behavior doesn’t get anyone anywhere. I can’t stand the term ‘pro-abortion’. No one I know is PRO abortion, as if it was a procedure that they all think is fantastic and should be done flippantly. I want LESS abortion, and while I think that we can never have zero abortion (as in the case where the mother’s life is in danger, or in a 12 year old who has been raped by their father, for example….in those cases it has to happen if the woman so chooses). I don’t even have a problem with a woman who knows full well she might die giving birth, choosing to continue a pregnancy and give birth… that is her choice. I think that abortion should remain legal for several reasons:

One, because there are those horrible cases I just mentioned above.
Two, because in a society where abortion is legal, those who are strongly opposed to it do not have to have an abortion! If I have an abortion it in no way affects your personal life, for example. But if the government forces me to carry to term, my life is severely affected. The government cannot know my psychological state, my health or capability to carry to term, give birth or raise a child. It cannot know the situation I might be in, and all that wouldn’t matter if it were illegal. It also affects society as a whole, if every single pregnancy is carried to term. Those on the right are less likely to support programs that would help people who are uninsured, out of a job, or need other kinds of help to get back on their feet. Adoption is great, but not always the answer. Agencies across the country are struggling to find adoptive parents of African-American babies for example. So it’s not like every baby put up for adoption finds a home; far from it.

I believe strongly in the need to reduce abortion and that we should look at countries where they have been successful in doing so, and implement the same model, as in the Netherlands. But most pro-life people also don’t believe in contraception, and in addition believe sex-education in schools should not be taught. And I don’t understand why. Well, in a way I do: I think that those people also think that sex is not a natural part of the teenage years, and refuse to accept that teenagers do have sex. I have a 14 year old son. Do I want him to have sex before he is 18? No! But I’m not naïve, and I’m going to make damn sure that he understands all the consequences of sex, unprotected and protected. I want him to have all the facts, and to think further than ‘the moment’. So I talk to him about what if he got a girl pregnant at 16 and she had the baby? How would that affect his life? And what would happen if he got AIDS? I think the big disconnect on the right is just that: the refusal to believe that teens are sexual beings, and the belief that it is something sinful and ugly. I don’t believe it is. I may not like it, but it is a true fact of life that sexual feelings are strong in the teenage years.
Finally there is the issue of what would happen to the woman and her family, or a teenager, if abortion was 100% illegal. Pro-lifers believe it is pre-meditated murder, the taking of an innocent life. For that, there are two punishments on the books: life in prison or the death penalty. By that reasoning, if Palin’s daughter Bristol had an abortion, she would be in prison for the rest of her life , or put to death. Is that reasonable? Is that what you want? Just because something is illegal, doesn’t mean that people don’t do it. You can surely come up with scenarios where someone could be desperate enough to have an abortion, even if they were to face life in prison or the death penalty. Imagine how many wards of the state there could be if a single mother has an abortion in a country where abortion is illegal. And then there would have to be investigations of ‘suspected abortions’, where if someone miscarries, the state would have to make sure it was not a home abortion. The doctor, would have to determine whether or not the miscarriage was in fact an abortion. What if the doctor determined it was an abortion when it really was a miscarriage? That person too would then face death or life in prison. Imagine that person is your 15 year old daughter. You would testify against her? You must think further and contemplate the reality of what would have to happen if abortion was illegal. In El Salvador, where abortion is 100% illegal, they have “forensic vagina specialists”. In any ambiguity, the state decides. Is that what you want? This I don’t understand. By all means, be opposed to abortion, try to lessen it, don’t have one, but to want the government to be involved in this is a human rights violation and would make this nation into a police state, the very thing you don’t want.

Filius de Paulus said...

You know I have always wondered about what the consequenses would be if abortion were illegal. I am also opposed to contraception but I do believe in a public school there should be a conprehensive approach to sex education as many parents never have the "talk" with their children. I know that it is a parents right to decide what a teen learns or not but at some point society needs to step in if a parent is not doing all they can to educate their child, plus in most places a parent can opt out of sex education if I'm not mistaken. It's a difficult subject but I think as a nation we need to stop with the name calling and just sit down and have a real conversation, but crazies on both side arent willing to do that.

Postergirl said...

Filius de paulus: I'm curious then, why you are opposed to contraception. Are you Catholic? I understand that in the Catholic faith you are supposed to be against contraception (correct me if I'm wrong, as I may be... I know a few Catholics who do use contraception). It's interesting for me to talk to someone who is against abortion and also against contraception. But you seem to agree that there should be a comprehensive approach to sex education in school, which would include talk of contraception.

Why are you against contraception? Does it have to do with sex? I guess what I'm asking, do you believe that all intercourse should be solely for the purpose of achieving pregnancy? I don't want to put words in your mouth at all, but I don't know why anyone would be contraception, given that people (young and old alike) have sex, and like to have sex because it is pleasureable, becaase it makes one feel intimate with one's partner (married or not) and so on. I don't think one should curb sexuality. I think that when you try, or when you make sex out to be something either dirty or unnatural, or put it on such high pedestal (only to be done to have babies), deviant sexual behavior can be born out of that (as in the case of so many pedophilic priests, molesters, and violent sexual acts). I'm not saying that's the sole cause of it, but I am saying that is one factor.

And what about AIDS? AIDS in Africa is rampant. Don't they deserve protection against this deadly disease? Abstinence, which a few here and there might practice, and condoms, are the only things that protect against AIDS. Why wish and hope that people don't have sex, rather than ensure that those who do, are at least as protected as they can be?


Filius de Paulus said...

Well Postergirl,
I am opposed to contraception because it distorts the dual dignity of sex. Yes, sex is for procreation but it is also unitive, meaning an expression of love between two people, married people. In fact I would urge you to visit my blog, I'm not trying to advertise it but the nature of sex is a longer issue than I wish to discuss here. But I am not opposed to contraceptives in Africa but at the same time those who are Catholic need to know the Church's teaching on sex and on contraception. We are not animals and we don't have to hump like dogs all the time, sex has a nature and it's not just for pleasure. Now, as for the Catholics you know, it's fine if they use it but then they go against what the Church teaches and probably don't have a full knowledge of why contraception is viewed as wrong. But, like I said, in order not to post a long drawn out response I would encourage you to read my blog on the Catholic Church entitled Peters Boy or visit And as I think I said earlier, I think a comprehensive approach should be used in PUBLIC schools and by NGO's in regards to AIDS. I understand everyone is not Catholic, so if they receive help from the Church then the Church's views should be communicated, if they receive public help then the morals of that government should be communicated. I don't apologize for the Church's morality, it is Truth, and it is Right. Sorry Tami for the long post I tried to be short.

Filius de Paulus said...

I forgot to mention that it's not because of priestly celibacy that there are pedophile priest, they were pedophiles before they entered the Holy Orders. Not to go off on a tangent but the Bible calls us to fast and abstain in certain ways and the highest form of submission to God is to give one's whole self, which is what a priest does, but now I'm going off into Catholic teaching and that off the original subject.

Postergirl said...

filius - I will check out your blog, thanks!

Lynn mom of 2 said...

I cannot believe that any woman could even slightly think there is a justifiable reason for abortion. It is murder. Plain and simple. If you go as far as delivering the body of this tiny human being then why not let another couple adopt your child. To my understanding , a majority of the woman going through with such procedures, say they can't afford to take care of a child but yet they come up with the hundreds of dollars needed to abort the child. Adoption is free, hell in most cases adoption agencies will provide shelter, clothes and food. One person commented that in some cases they feel this procedure is ok, why? There is no acceptable excuse for killing an innocent child that never asked to be here in the first place. I am a mother and I tell you one thing, If I had to choose my life or my child's life, you best damn believe I will lay my life down to save my child. From the day I found out I was pregnant to the day I birthed my child I was proud to to carry a life inside of me.