Our Shared Shelf discussion

1529 views
Intersectional Feminism > Demographics of Abortion

Comments Showing 1-50 of 112 (112 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3

message 1: by Robert (new)

Robert Kafadar http://prospect.org/article/demograph...

"Today, a full 42 percent of women having abortions live under the poverty line, and another 27 percent have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line. Taken together, 69 percent of women who have abortions are economically disadvantaged. Given recent attacks on Planned Parenthood—Texas, for instance, has rejected federal funding of the organization entirely—this trend is likely to continue."

little old and I am just going through her articles and checking data so please give your input while I am forming mine


message 2: by Aglaea (new)

Aglaea | 987 comments Do you want stuff on abortion only? Or PP etc. as well?

I find it ironic that "pro life" people send death threats to clinic workers. I think that sums up my view of that lot.


message 3: by [deleted user] (new)

Aglaea wrote: "Do you want stuff on abortion only? Or PP etc. as well?

I find it ironic that "pro life" people send death threats to clinic workers. I think that sums up my view of that lot."


It's called Christian coherence.


message 4: by Aglaea (new)

Aglaea | 987 comments Elena wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "Do you want stuff on abortion only? Or PP etc. as well?

I find it ironic that "pro life" people send death threats to clinic workers. I think that sums up my view of that lot."

It'..."


I see. It has a name.


message 5: by Simon (new)

Simon Kuhn | 223 comments Tbh, I don't really have a problem with these religions, I do have a lot of respect for them actually: most members of my family are Christian so it's definetly not like I have something against them!
It's just that,and I believe I'm going to get a lot of (negative) feedback from this comment, I don't really think that their "rules" still apply to this world. Like having sex with condoms is not allowed, same with abortion.. don't really see the point of this anymore.
I know the answer to such a question is, was and always will be 'religion' but I'd like to know a real answer from someone (religious or not)! Thanks for respecting my opinion <3 Love y'all ;)


message 6: by [deleted user] (last edited Feb 22, 2016 01:46PM) (new)

Simon wrote: "Tbh, I don't really have a problem with these religions, I do have a lot of respect for them actually: most members of my family are Christian so it's definetly not like I have something against th..."

You need to rethink that. They keep ruling this world and abortion and condoms are just the foam of the thing. It's just an excuse they use in order to keep trying to rule with their moral beliefs.

Christian culture has way, way, way deeper implications than those ones. In fact, it's the reason we still deal with all the problems we deal in such a developed society (relatively speaking). We've grown on a rotted base. And that base is Christianism. Only when we erase that from this world we will be free.

Religion in Christianism is just an excuse. God is just an excuse. An excuse to justify barbarity, irrationality and, in conclusion, hatred of life.


message 7: by Aglaea (new)

Aglaea | 987 comments Simon wrote: "Tbh, I don't really have a problem with these religions, I do have a lot of respect for them actually: most members of my family are Christian so it's definetly not like I have something against th..."

Evangelical-lutheranism in Finland is very laid back. Your comment sums up sort of how life is in my corner of the world. People mind their own business a lot, which is nice. I had no idea there were as many rabid, fundamentalist Christians out there as I've discovered in various places online. Scares the crap out if me honestly. There's so much exclusion. Yet my country is one of the most equal and harmonious places to live, so we certainly are doing many things right. I left church a while ago, but am familiar with it, I should add.


message 8: by [deleted user] (new)

Aglaea wrote: "Simon wrote: "Tbh, I don't really have a problem with these religions, I do have a lot of respect for them actually: most members of my family are Christian so it's definetly not like I have someth..."

Even though I agree that Finland is one of the best countries right now, nobody can run away from the consequences of 2000 years of Christian domination, and your country is not an exception. But explaining you why would be long and hard to accept for the rest of the readers, so I'll keep it for myself now haha.


message 9: by Simon (new)

Simon Kuhn | 223 comments Thanks both of you for replying.
I also just want to make clear that I do get the meaning of religions (Was not only talking about Christanism) but I was just pointing out these 'rules' that I dont really get because I'm not a Christian myself (and probably because I still need to learn some things in the world).
Just wanted to set my opinion :)
Thanks again for responding, much appreciated :D

-Simon <3


message 10: by [deleted user] (new)

Simon wrote: "Thanks both of you for replying.
I also just want to make clear that I do get the meaning of religions (Was not only talking about Christanism) but I was just pointing out these 'rules' that I don..."


Don't worry too much, you still have time to think about it! You're pretty young ;)


message 12: by Barb (new)

Barb (barbie15) | 15 comments I grew up in the Christian church and have since left because there is a lot of double standards, and if you bring this up in the church you get shut down pretty quick. There are Christians in my life that I truly respect and can be excluded from this, so I say some Christians put on a mask like they are so put together and spiritually sound but they disrespect (sometimes unstably so) everyone else in the world that does not believe which in my mind causes more harm because they claim to be good people. Christians are supposed to make the world a better place according to them but with the double standard I do not see how that is possible.


message 13: by Bunny (new)

Bunny There are a lot of different kinds of Christian churches in the world.


message 14: by Suzi (new)

Suzi (sbommers) | 33 comments Simon wrote: "Tbh, I don't really have a problem with these religions, I do have a lot of respect for them actually: most members of my family are Christian so it's definetly not like I have something against th..."

While I am not a Christian, I think I can answer your question regarding the ban on birth control (be it chemical or barrier) and abortion.

This is how it was explained to me when I was much younger and actually attended church:

Christ was born of woman. It is the Christian belief that Christ will return, and therefore any child has the potential to be the future Messiah. If a pregnancy is prevented via birth control, or terminated by abortion, you could be preventing the Messiah's second coming.

I find this reasoning to be a logical fallacy because it implies that the Messiah could manifest in a destined-to-be-unfertalized egg, or a soon-to-be-aborted fetus, which implies that God had no foreknowledge of these events and is, therefore, fallible. If God is fallible, it undoes the whole of creation. Also, this line of reasoning does not address potential children lost in masturbatory ejaculation.


message 15: by [deleted user] (last edited Mar 19, 2016 02:25PM) (new)

Suzi wrote: "Simon wrote: "Tbh, I don't really have a problem with these religions, I do have a lot of respect for them actually: most members of my family are Christian so it's definetly not like I have someth..."

Or in every single ovulation a woman has that doesn't involve pregnancy. It's just ridiculous to try to rationalize this.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about the coming of the Messiah anymore. If he saw what his followers did in his name, I'm not sure if we would be able to distinguish whether he is the Messiah or the Antichrist. Probably he would be both.

Man can't always reap what he sow.


message 16: by Suzi (new)

Suzi (sbommers) | 33 comments Very true, Leo.


message 17: by S. K. (last edited Mar 19, 2016 01:56PM) (new)

S. K. Pentecost | 63 comments Christianity isn't the only religion to frown on abortion. Not even the only Abrahamic religion. The reason so many religions rule against abortion is all about the origin story.

Every organized religion starts out as a cult of "crazies" believing in something, often close to, but always not quite what the societies around them believe. The best way to recruit for a religion is to raise a child up in that belief system. Original texts must always preach rapid population expansion to build a cohort of believers in that society and safeguard the new belief system's place in history.

One of my favorite examples of a religion failing to breed its own believers is the Shakers, who preached that all sex is evil, and had to rely totally on conversions to keep the sect going. (And imagine how hard it would be to win converts when one of your primary religious practices is universal celibacy.) I think some of the last Shaker churches were facing extinction at the turn of this century, so actually they had a pretty good run considering their handicap. Maybe the gender neutral message was almost strong enough to overcome the no sex thing?


message 18: by S. K. (new)

S. K. Pentecost | 63 comments Oh, in all the denomination bashing I forgot I totally had something to add to the OP's conversation topic...

Anyone here read Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything? I thought from their hallowed place on NPR they must be visionaries, but I just read the book that started it all, and in that book they state, in no uncertain terms, that aborting black fetuses is the United States' single most powerful weapon against crime prevention. They say this more than once.

They say they have the data to back it up, but it still feels a lot like when the eugenicists got Darwin's theory wrong, and started sterilizing young girls, Trigger Warning: (view spoiler)


message 19: by [deleted user] (last edited Mar 19, 2016 02:12PM) (new)

S. K. wrote: "Christianity isn't the only religion to frown on abortion. Not even the only Abrahamic religion. The reason so many religions rule against abortion is all about the origin story.

Every organized ..."


The saddest thing is that they don't even know the reason their beliefs exist. Well, it's obvious, if they knew, they wouldn't believe. Sure, opression of complexity in behaviour is necessary for social cohesion. The more simple and basic your social rules are, the safer it is for your collective to be established. And when individual thought starts to arise, the best choice you have for making everybody be submissive is to invoke the name of God (and the Devil). And if he guarantees you eternity, who gives a shit about life? You just smash yourself blindly against the wall. Christianism has been the best way to create a herd of phychopaths.

In fact, the most terrible thing is that it's nature itself who created them. It would be such a relief to believe they've been just a mistake. But nature always plays the safest card.


message 20: by Bunny (last edited Mar 19, 2016 02:39PM) (new)

Bunny S. K. wrote: "Oh, in all the denomination bashing I forgot I totally had something to add to the OP's conversation topic...

Anyone here read [book:Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Eve..."


I have read Freakonomics and that is a misrepresentation of what it says. What it says is that legal abortion allows women to decide to end their pregnancies if they are not in a position to care for the child. Therefore it reduces the number of unwanted children born into situations where they will not be cared for. Therefore it reduces the crime rate because uncared for children often grow up to commit crimes. This is a theory posited to explain a decline in crime rates over the past several decades. The book also mentions several other theories including the reduction of lead pollution due to the elimination of leaded gasoline, changes in policing strategies, and an aging population.

The only connection any of that has to race is that black people are more likely to be poor because of the effects of racism. And poor people will tend to face more economic challenges in raising kids. Poor people also tend to live in more polluted neighborhoods.


message 21: by [deleted user] (new)

S. K. wrote: "Oh, in all the denomination bashing I forgot I totally had something to add to the OP's conversation topic...

Anyone here read [book:Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Eve..."


Well, that's because of the situation white supremacy has put some other races. And that would be a short-term solution but a terrible long-term one. Diversity is a fundamental part of evolution and it's not easy at all to have it, so it's not really wise for the species to diminish it.


message 22: by Tiara (new)

Tiara Pearson | 20 comments I think of myself as a young Christian woman trying to figure things out. I know that my religion doesn't agree with abortion. I know that I, myself, could never have an abortion. However, I do believe that every woman deserves to have a choice, one that doesn't warrant deaths threats or other hateful acts. It pains me to see any person of faith, no matter what religion, go as far as wanting to physically harm someone for their choices or way of thinking. Who am I to dictate to another person what they do with their body? The way I see it, their decision is between them and God, or whatever deity they believe in. It is not my place to condemn someone for the choices they've made.


message 23: by S. K. (new)

S. K. Pentecost | 63 comments Bunny wrote: "The book also mentions several other theories including the reduction of lead pollution due to the elimination of leaded gasoline, changes in policing strategies, and an aging population."

It only mentions those hypotheses to discredit them, to bolster their own explanation about abortion.

Which I totally agree with you that the data is a reflection of racism inherent in society, but if they mentioned this, it was so in passing that I don't remember it. It seems to me that the data is a more powerful argument for the continued existence of white supremacy in our nation than it is of abortion as crime prevention strategy. The main thrust of their argument should have been that the data shows that we're not as far from Jim Crow as we like to believe.

Then Donald Trump read the data, and realized there was enough yahooism out there to give him a shot at the highest office in the land by pandering to it.


message 24: by Bunny (new)

Bunny That is not how I read the book at all.


message 25: by Brittany (new)

Brittany Shaffer | 2 comments I think that spreading such hate toward any one group of people is walking right into dangerous territory. I have been a Christian for a long time, and I have seen a lot of bad people do awful things in the name of Christianity. But I have also seen a lot of good people doing great things because of their faith. I personally wouldn't have an abortion, but I don't think that the government should have a say in whether someone else can make that decision for themselves. Just remember, it's not usually the best of any one group that tells the loudest. And for the record, I and many others I know think that those people who claim to be prolife Christians but are attacking and threatening anyone are about as Christian as Satan himself. They are by no means representative of the whole, or even the majority. I think of them as the terrorists of the Christian world.


message 26: by Jordan (new)

Jordan Martinez | 10 comments That "It" is called abortion. Or in the eyes of pro life conervatives, the killing of a child not yet born. Current world population is round 8 billion, and growing. We in America dont want to end up like India, where women have 5+ babies. Nor do we want to neglect a womens choice to have a abortion if she had been raped and that is the causation factor of the fertilization of the egg, i.e the now pregnant women. So what do we do? With the statistics that 42% of the women live under the poverty line, implies that financies are to blame. Yet what of the other 58%! ARE they at the poverty line? Above? Are they maybe more or less different? With all the food stamps and taxs floating around for helping families with kids, its hard to say. That is not to say that financies are to blame, but the management of what ever financies are at hand or in effect at ones disposal. In america with the advant of the internet, and now sites as ebay, amazon, Craigslist, etc, its pretty hard to not make money, unless your just having intercourse with no protection all the time and more or less procreating without premeditation (getting knocked up, or knocking someone up). Sad to say, this might be the cause in lower income comunities (hence the 42% of women who live under the poverty line). The only plausible solution is actually not abortion, nor non abortion approches, but actually a re eduction of the younger generation. They, the children, must be shown life, real life. No bikering over money, no greedy or selfish vanities pursued over educational pursuits or environmental causes, etc. In a way, we have to socialize a generation that lives at a higher level of counciousness, in effect, we must lead by example. We must clean the enviornment, that will reciprocat on our selves and look at how we can clean our act, which in effect will some way cause a trigger in the morale of men and women to hold procreation and the act in which it is bestowed &/ initiated, as something universally sacred, holy, not just a physical nuisance where one can release dopamine because they have been sad all weak. What I am saying is, a less is more approche. Lets lower the carbon footprint, lets creates jobs and business, get involved, tolerant, and most importantly socialize those at the lower levels with these above mentioned ways and/ additional ways such as the talk of feminism we are having at this very moment in time, thank you for your time.


message 27: by Aglaea (new)

Aglaea | 987 comments Brittany wrote: "but I don't think that the government should have a say in whether someone else can make that decision for themselves."

This. Government has nothing to do with religion, in particular in countries where there are more than one religion present and where there are also atheists and agnostics like myself. Government is state system only, whereas religion is what happens in homes and religious buildings, should someone desire that kind of lifestyle. Not all do and not all religious people think out of one mold either, even when they formally belong to the same faith.

As an agnostic, I really could not care less about what a holy book of some sort says, because I simply don't believe in the teachings. Therefore I don't wish for that book to dictate anything involving my personal affairs either, but I wish for a neutral government and laws that concern all people within a particular country's borders. At least the laws are the same for everyone, even when random religious rules are not.


message 28: by Alexis (new)

Alexis Marie | 200 comments Can you be a feminist and pro-life? I'm just wandering.


message 29: by Alexis (new)

Alexis Marie | 200 comments I agree. The people outside of clinics are extremists. They should compassion for the woman and offer her support.


message 30: by S. K. (new)

S. K. Pentecost | 63 comments Alexis wrote: "I agree. The people outside of clinics are extremists. They should compassion for the woman and offer her support."

Or better yet, channel all the energies they invest in standing outside of clinics toward creating a world where comprehensive sex education and universally available contraception truly make abortion the birth control of last resort.


message 31: by Alexis (new)

Alexis Marie | 200 comments I agree SK. Why is birth control still stigmatized? It prevents abortion and it prevents children being born to people whom are unready to be parents. It protects all involve.


message 32: by Aglaea (new)

Aglaea | 987 comments S. K. wrote: "Alexis wrote: "I agree. The people outside of clinics are extremists. They should compassion for the woman and offer her support."

Or better yet, channel all the energies they invest in standing o..."


Also allow the morning after pill to be available without pharmacists sitting on their high horses playing gods. Let the God be a god, if the person requesting a pill has a personal God.

It's all this judgment going around that is our problem, people should focus on their own sins (if you believe in sin and such in the first place) and own failures, mistakes, evil, etc. rather than be so eager to point out the neighbour's flaws. It's ridiculous, this lack of fixing one's own weaknesses first. We'd have a much better world if everyone would just do their own thing.


message 33: by S. K. (new)

S. K. Pentecost | 63 comments Aglaea wrote: "We'd have a much better world if everyone would just do their own thing."

Do I detect some anarchism in your world view? I agree that we would have a better world if everyone would do their own thing. Unfortunately that kind of world's biggest vulnerability would be one person convincing a small group of people that they had a better plan.

I do wish that we could run the world on the Golden Rule, but it's a seductive trap to believe that just because you are minding your own business, everybody else out there is minding theirs. It's a lot of work, but that's why we're here, taking a stand, committed to change.


message 34: by Elizabeth (last edited Mar 27, 2016 06:13PM) (new)

Elizabeth (elizabethlk) | 22 comments I don't understand how the same legislators who want to get rid of abortion also want to get rid of birth control. We can't have it both ways.

These discussions just make me glad that I live in a place where I have easy, legal, affordable access to birth control and abortion.

Women who want or need either should have full access to both, as well as support for whatever decisions they make. And support could even be as simple as: just don't make an already potentially hard time harder.


message 35: by S. K. (new)

S. K. Pentecost | 63 comments Elizabeth wrote: "I don't understand how the same legislators who want to get rid of abortion also want to get rid of abortion. We can't have it both ways. "

I think there is a typo there someplace but I'm not sure where. Could you please clarify?


message 36: by Bunny (new)

Bunny I'm guessing what she meant to say was that the same legislators who want to get rid of abortion also want to get rid of birth control. Which doesn't make sense because if you don't have access to birth control you are more likely to need access to abortion.


message 37: by Elizabeth (new)

Elizabeth (elizabethlk) | 22 comments Hahaha sorry! Yes, birth control. Honestly though, I don't understand how the ones who wants to get rid of abortion want to get rid of abortion. Not wrong, just not what I was going for. I have edited my post.


message 38: by S. K. (new)

S. K. Pentecost | 63 comments Bunny wrote: "I'm guessing what she meant to say was that the same legislators who want to get rid of abortion also want to get rid of birth control. "

Oh good, I'm glad you and Elizabeth cleared it up, because for some reason when I think of pro-lifers, I always blanket judge them as also pro-death penalty. Which is a favorite irony of mine.


message 39: by Aglaea (new)

Aglaea | 987 comments Quoting isn't functioning right now, but this is for SK.

"Aglaea wrote: "We'd have a much better world if everyone would just do their own thing."

Do I detect some anarchism in your world view? I agree that we would have a better world if everyone would do their own thing. Unfortunately that kind of world's biggest vulnerability would be one person convincing a small group of people that they had a better plan.

I do wish that we could run the world on the Golden Rule, but it's a seductive trap to believe that just because you are minding your own business, everybody else out there is minding theirs. It's a lot of work, but that's why we're here, taking a stand, committed to change."

Nooo I don't think anarchism solves anything. Maybe back in the day when life was simpler and everyone depended on themselves only, but not today. It is an illusion to think that an anarchistic society would work, because people are too selfishly geared for serious cooperation to happen. There is always that one asshole, and then we can't have nice things.

No, what I meant was in continuum with the mind their own business, aka fix their own flaws first, and only then once they are perfect specimens of the human race can they start criticising everyone else's doings and telling others what rules to follow.

I recently watched Gandhi again, and seems we still aren't learning anything. At least in my own country people aren't as eager to chop off heads or pour acid and other niceties on their neighbours as in other parts of the world, but we have a lot to learn here still.


message 40: by Tia (new)

Tia | 10 comments Alexis wrote: "I agree SK. Why is birth control still stigmatized? It prevents abortion and it prevents children being born to people whom are unready to be parents. It protects all involve."

Scarily enough, I have spoken to fundamentalists that believe birth control is just another form of abortion. Their solution is just abstinence and forms of birth control that are less effective.

Logic doesn't play into it. They don't understand that less access to reliable birth control means more abortions.

I'm personally very pro-choice.


message 41: by Fiza (new)

Fiza (fizaaarshad) | 99 comments My goodness, has anyone heard about Brazil banning abortion pills in spite of the Zika virus. Not only does it involve the question of choice, but it raises serious ethical concerns over our supposed self-righteousness that will cost women, associated family members, and babies their whole lives.


message 42: by Bunny (new)

Bunny The pills were already banned in Brazil, what they are doing is confiscating pills that pregnant women exposed to Zika had mail ordered from other countries.


message 43: by Tia (new)

Tia | 10 comments Those women shouldn't have to mail order those pills. I know that is part of the religion in Brazil but it simply makes no sense to me. I'm fortunate to live in Australia where this largely is not an issue. Women aren't incubators. They shouldn't be forced to give birth against their will, certainly not in cases where their health is at risk and/or the baby has a condition that means it won't survive.


message 44: by Bunny (new)

Bunny I agree.


message 45: by Aglaea (new)

Aglaea | 987 comments Tia wrote: "Scarily enough, I have spoken to fundamentalists that believe birth control is just another form of abortion. Their solution is just abstinence and forms of birth control that are less effective."

That's ridiculous. Seriously. If exactly every functional sperm that a man produces would lead to a child being born, we wouldn't be able to exist since the first generation of people walked this planet. There would be no room for all. Sometimes I wonder about IQ...

And no, a uterus doesn't have to be open for service 24/7.

Are the people making those decisions in Brazil men by any chance? Because I doubt many women would like for their child that they've carried for months would have Zika... I'm appalled.


message 46: by Fiza (new)

Fiza (fizaaarshad) | 99 comments Bunny wrote: "The pills were already banned in Brazil, what they are doing is confiscating pills that pregnant women exposed to Zika had mail ordered from other countries."

Thanks for the correction! =)


message 47: by Bunny (new)

Bunny Fiza wrote: "Bunny wrote: "The pills were already banned in Brazil, what they are doing is confiscating pills that pregnant women exposed to Zika had mail ordered from other countries."

Thanks for the correcti..."


You are welcome! It seems to me that the Zika crisis is another example of how women suffer because some people want to romanticize pregnancy instead of treating it as what it is, a messy, complicated, physically demanding and sometimes deeply strange bodily function that doesn't always result in a perfect outcome. When I listen to anti abortion and anti birth control rhetoric it always seems to assume that every pregnancy is going to result in this soft focus happy family with music in the background. Then try to make policy based on that fantasy.


message 48: by MeerderWörter (new)

MeerderWörter | 2388 comments S. K. wrote: "Bunny wrote: "I'm guessing what she meant to say was that the same legislators who want to get rid of abortion also want to get rid of birth control."
Oh good, I'm glad you and Elizabeth cleared ..."


I can ensure you that I'm against the death-penalty. The death-penalty isn't really pro-life, is it?

Alexis wrote: "Can you be a feminist and pro-life? I'm just wandering."
Rest assured, you can. I am one. Punch me if you like, but I think the two go perfectly well together. I am not a person who presumes to rule over another's life. I want to help people, not kill them.

Suzi wrote: "Simon wrote: "Tbh, I don't really have a problem with these religions, I do have a lot of respect for them actually: most members of my family are Christian so it's definetly not like I have someth..."
I don't know about the other Christian churches but the Roman Catholic church prohibited it, masturbation. I've never heard this explanation tho, with Messias and all.

Aglaea wrote: "Do you want stuff on abortion only? Or PP etc. as well?

I find it ironic that "pro life" people send death threats to clinic workers. I think that sums up my view of that lot."

Aglaea, rest assured. I'll never kill or send death threats to clinic workers. That's against pro-life, in itself.


message 49: by S. K. (new)

S. K. Pentecost | 63 comments MeerderWörter wrote: "...the Roman Catholic church prohibited it, masturbation. I've never heard this explanation tho"

The biblical justification takes place in the delightful story of Onan in 3 verses of Genesis chapter 38. Onan ignored the command of God to sleep with his dead brother's wife, and instead "spilled his seed upon the ground." For which crime God punished him with death, (thus making it a Mortal Sin.)

Masturbation (or actually outercourse as some translations read,) can be a non procreative alternative to coitus, which would lower the growth rate of believers in a society. So I suspect that the true reason any church focuses on that prohibition is because it's much more effective birth control than the rhythm method.


message 50: by Hannah (new)

Hannah Dreher | 37 comments S. K. wrote: "MeerderWörter wrote: "...the Roman Catholic church prohibited it, masturbation. I've never heard this explanation tho"

The biblical justification takes place in the delightful story of Onan in 3 v..."


I'm not Catholic, but as I understand it, Onan's punishment wasn't because he pulled out but because he was breaking the rule of giving his dead brother's wife children. The disobedience was the issue, not the spilling of the seed.

Anyway, Christianity is a large group with many disagreements. I am a Christian. I am a feminist. I am anti-abortion because I believe it is murder. I am pro-contraception.

The people bombing abortion clinics and making death threats would be hard pressed to give a logical theological argument to justify their actions. Christians are supposed to be like Christ--know them by their fruit, not by the false colors they fly.

I can understand that a person who doesn't believe it is murder would not have reason to object to it. Please understand that I, believing it to be murder, cannot act as if it isn't.


« previous 1 3
back to top