A recent post in the Trump: Year V thread got my wheels turning again on the topic of abortion. The post, authored/shared by Pavilion, which appears on page 37, highlights the ongoing court battle involving Sandra Merritt and Planned Parenthood. The way I understand it, Sandra is an associate of David Daleiden, who founded the Center for Medical Progress (CMP).

A page regarding Sandra's case:
https://lc.org/sandra2

A page from David's CMP site:
https://www.centerformedicalpr...vestigative-footage/

A couple months ago, I had a relatively brief conversation with a close relative concerning abortion. This relative is not conservative, did not vote for Trump, and is not a Christian. He is, to his credit, not a total leftard; as in he's not invested in the left ideology in a rabid way, and he doesn't deliberately consume MSM. However, he lives in a leftist stronghold, and is surrounded by leftist friends, coworkers, etc.

In the wake of Trump's Election success, he said abortion rights was one of the things he was worried about. We had a brief, civil conversation about the topic on the phone, and I followed-up with a few emails.

He cited extreme fringe cases, as his justification for unlimited abortion access. I pointed out that they were extreme fringe cases, offered one my own: that of Kermit Gosnell (to show that both sides have those dramatic cases to lean on), and emphasized that the contemporary conservative effort is largely focused on preventing the overwhelming majority of abortions, which aren't extreme circumstances.

Is this a discussion any other members have had with friends, family, or coworkers? Have you made progress?

Below is the body of my first email to him, in the wake of our call. The site mentioned shares some interesting data. In our ongoing conversations regarding the state of things in America, I consistently encourage him to take nothing at face value. Do a few minutes worth of research on anything and everything, and you'll often find that things aren't as the first source made them seem.

///

This is a useful reference. I have seen things cherry-picked from this page, and shared without relevant context. The way that things have been shared certainly bolsters the pro-life narrative. Neither side of the political spectrum is "better" than that sort of behavior. It's up to us to dig deeper. I tend to trust these "grass roots" pro-life efforts, as they have much to lose in being dishonest. They need every bit of credibility they can muster. If they do anything that undermines their credibility, they are done. I think this collection of stats paints a mostly-accurate picture. Much of this stuff relies on voluntary survey participation, so we can ultimately still only speculate as to what portions of the abortive demography are more or less likely to opt-in to a survey that asks about their abortion motivations.

https://abort73.com/abortion_f...abortion_statistics/

///

I think the way that Liberty Counsel presents Sandra's struggle is an odd one. Perhaps they frame it for the audience they know is likely to see it, which makes sense. If I shared with my relative what Pavilion shared on page 37 of the Trump thread, his eyes might roll so far back into his head as to be irreversible. That is the notion that got my wheels turning again, and prompted me to present the matter to y'all.

The clips from CMP are a different story, of course, and represent a portion of the human population who are hell-bound. I don't know how anyone could roll their eyes while listening to those deranged individuals chuckle while they talk about targeting fetal body parts that represent a potential payday for them.

We need a society not in which abortion is reduced because it is criminalized, but one in which it's eliminated because it is no longer desired. That takes a change of heart at the fundamental level, and it's up to us to engage those around us. That's not to say I don't understand the usefulness of criminalization as a transitional tactic. The atmosphere created by limited legal access to abortion could be one that makes it much easier to change those hearts and minds.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

Touchy subject. I favor being ludicrous to make the point.

Tell him he must approve of the near fatal wounding of a 5 and 6 year old in early December in California (or Sandy Hook or some other horrible tragedy where small children were killed). Of course he will forcefully object to approving of such actions and may become indignant.

When he does, point out that what he objects to is not the killing of children. He just objects to the timing and method. He's fine with killing children.


(That will likely lead discussion about when life begins and if a baby can't live on its own outside the womb then it's not life. If he does, ask if he'll sign a petition to discontinue all life support efforts keeping people alive who would otherwise die without it.)

Let us know how it goes.

I appreciate the feedback, mojojojo. I just (likely much to his disappointment) re-ignited the conversation with this brief email:

Is it fair to compare abortion to life support? A common abortion talking point is the fact that life hasn't actually yet begun for the victim. Therefore it's not a murderous procedure. That said, could an argument be levied against life support at the end of someone's life, because their life isn't meant to continue? Why are we eager to move both of life's brackets to the right? It seems to be a rather perverted customization of something that's not ours to fiddle with. What are your thoughts?

Thanks for the idea. I hope I presented it appropriately. We'll see what happens.

I've found that it's a losing proposition trying to discuss this, you don't seem to understand just how holy a tenet this is to the Left as twisted as that actually sounds.

quote:

We need a society not in which abortion is reduced because it is criminalized, but one in which it's eliminated because it is no longer desired. That takes a change of heart at the fundamental level, and it's up to us to engage those around us. That's not to say I don't understand the usefulness of criminalization as a transitional tactic. The atmosphere created by limited legal access to abortion could be one that makes it much easier to change those hearts and minds.

The question to ask is "Why?"
Why do you want a society where it is reduced or eliminated because it is no longer desired?
It's because it is human life.

You know that; they know that. They just don't want to admit it.

At some point the discussion becomes scientific: heartbeat, feels pain, etc. With reasonable people that can result in a compromise such as legislation that permits abortion during the early stages of pregnancy but not beyond some point.

There is no civil way to discuss abortion with a pro-abort. In my experience the dialogue decays into emotional gratuitous assertions which invite rebuttal in their falseness. But it’s a trap. Soon you’ll be in a smoke screen of tangents and baseless charges. This is designed to prevent the one logical sequence your opponent doesn’t want to confront.

My position on it now is to make short bumper sticker declarations of truth and principle. I don’t get into detail nor do I explain myself. They know they’re wrong, or most of them do. It’s a holocaust and they’re no better than the citizen apologists or even advocates in WWII Germany. If the discussion goes that far, I’ll make that point to end the topic with prejudice. At this point few people remain to be convinced. Many are stubbornly in their perspective because they have either had abortions or have a relationship with someone who has and admitting the truth convicts them.

Here’s where I’ve found peace with abortion. The fetuses are not lost. My religious perspective is that they go where all innocents go and are loved by their God. Their lives were brief and painful. But their salvation guaranteed. The real victims of abortion are those who engage in it. Absent genuine repentance and forgiveness, they are lost to evil. In that sense, I feel sorry for them. Their victims are surrounded by love and will or have reached their potential on the other side of the veil of life. This is personal inspiration I received many years ago.

Is the abortion debate inseparable from Abrahamic religion? Is there such a thing as an an anti-abortion advocate that is not a believer in something for our soul outside of life in the material world? Is there such a thing as an anti-abortion atheist?

I ask because I have identified this as a sticking point in my conversations with my relative.

quote:

At this point few people remain to be convinced.

I believe my relative is potentially one of those few, which is why I am stubborn in my persistence. He doesn't act quite the way you describe in your first paragraph. The fact that he's self-aware enough to know and concede that he's not exceptionally well-informed on the matter is hope-enough for me.

Also, I appreciate your use of "pro-abort". That has been the primary language I use in my emails. I have now amended the title of this thread to use that phraseology, instead of "pro-choice".

My main argument comes from my faith that God can redeem every situation. No matter what the origin of the pregnancy, God knew that soul before it was ever formed in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5) and, given the chance, has great plans for His creation.

Jesus himself was brought into the world in a situation not all that different from many of the "terrible" conditions that abortion-rights activists would argue warrant an abortion:
1. a young, unwed mother becomes pregnant
2. she didn't ask to be pregnant or do anything to get herself into that situation
3. it is a shameful situation in their society
4. she is poor and so is her would-be husband
5. her people are oppressed by the government

And yet, salvation for all comes through this situation.

If you don't feel like a faith-based argument is adequate, I would try to come to agreement that:
1. it is a human soul from the moment of conception.
2. the vast, vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, incest, or the health of the mother and are strictly elective.

If they don't have the good faith and intellectual honesty to come to terms on those two things, it is going to be uphill sledding.

quote:

the vast, vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, incest, or the health of the mother and are strictly elective.

Indeed. That website I shared with him in my first message makes that quite clear. I did my best to elaborate on some pieces of information from that site in a follow-on email, which I'll share below...

///

I have found myself quite taken with the page I sent to you yesterday. Some of those data points are unexpected. Some require a little bit of decoding.

Unexpected and interesting (to me):

More than half of abortive parents identify as Christians
The abortion rate is much higher in urban areas. Almost 1/3 of pregnancies in NY City ended in abortion in 2021.
The percentage of abortive parents who had already had one, two, or even three live births is greater than I would have guessed.
The abortion rate among African-Americans is more than three times what it is among Caucasians.
The countries that have higher abortion rates than the US. I wonder: what about those countries makes that so? It seems they're overwhelmingly eastern European, to include Russia.
Many unintended pregnancies that end in abortion occurred despite the use of contraceptives and birth control (more on that in a bit).

Interpretation and decoding of the "reason" tables:

The two tables presented are what brought us to this particular web page. The specifically-Florida table was shared by a conservative social media personality. She provided NO context or source. This is a problem, IMO. The X post showed merely the table; no indication that it represented only the state of FL, and no link to the source material. The shock-and-awe message was the percentage of "elective" abortions. In other words, the perceived lack of personal responsibility among the majority of abortive parents. When we do trace the source of the information, we are presented with the 2004 Guttmacher survey results table. The results are at first apparently incongruent, but are actually, once decoded, nearly identical.

The FL chart shows 74% of abortions occurring on an "elective" basis, and 21% occurring for "social and economic" reasons. I'd define the "social and economic" motivation as a circumstance in which someone otherwise would have followed-through with the pregnancy but was, after conception, faced with an unforeseen financial hardship (lost job) or unforeseen family breakdown (husband or boyfriend bailed). Those are just two examples that would fit the criteria. That said, we can lump six of the reasons presented in the Guttmacher survey into the "elective" category: Interference with education/career, maturity, single mother aversion, done having children, not ready, and other. Once you perform that, we are left with a condition of 69% elective and 23% social and economic (can't afford a baby). That's pretty close to the FL results.

Interpretation of the use, potential misuse, and effectiveness of contraception:

I think the info page does itself a disservice (considering it's a pro-life site), in the way it phrases the comment about unwanted pregnancies despite the use of contraception occurring "often". The word often lends more weight to the idea than is deserved. If we again use FL data (because they just have the most thorough data collection), we can relatively precisely determine how much the failure or misuse of contraception contributes to unwanted pregnancies. The 2021 population of FL was 21,780,000. This gives us a sexually active population between the ages of 15 and 45 of about 7,623,000. Abortions in FL, in 2021, were logged at 79,817. If we compute the reported 99.9% effective nature of a condom into that sexually-active population, we're given a potential pregnancy-due-to-contraception-failure number of 7,623. So, the number of abortions that year was over ten times the contraception failure rate of the sexually active FL population. My head kind of hurts, and my calculations may not be perfect. I think the bottom line, despite my potential errors, is unchanged: the abortions as a result of unwanted pregnancies due to contraceptive failure is a very small amount of the total abortions. It may occur more often than you think but I don't think it's accurate to say that it occurs often. Irresponsibility occurs often.

The contemporary conservative effort isn't aimed at taking away women's rights; it's about promoting personal responsibility and discouraging promiscuity that contributes to the moral erosion of western culture. The impending administration's intent is to give the decision-making power on this topic to the states. The nearer the process is to the people, the more representative the results will be of the peoples' wishes.

It's worth noting that there is much policing to be done of "our own". The demographic of Christian abortive parents is evidence of this. Why would a Christian choose abortion? There is a DVD that _____ has: The Demographic Winter. I suggest watching it. It's not so much about abortion as it is about a much larger phenomenon that certainly influences the decisions people are making about their offspring.

I hope this message finds you well!

///

As you can see, I attempted to math some stuff in there. If I made any grievous mistakes with that, please let me know. As you may also note, I make an effort to conversational and non-confrontational. So, if I appear to be a bit too accommodating, it's because I am making that conscious effort.

Why are you trying to even engage him?

Just agree to disagree here and leave him alone.

You aren't going to change any minds.

This won't last long

The math for condom effectiveness is wrong.

It’s 99.9% effective each and every time you use it, but each usage is independent. You’d have to raise it by the power of average usage to find the actual percentage.

Thank you. Can you be so kind as to re-do that portion correctly for me, reloader? I ask because I don't know what "raise by the power of average usage" means. That email was the most I had asked of my mathematical faculties in a while.

The only thing which has given them pause, is to posit that if a woman has a right to abort, so should the male.

The thought of a man forcing a woman to kill her baby, might horrify a few of them.

Stand by to see this thread nuked from orbit. Super Bowl, Active Shooters and Abortion.

Unless Para gives special dispensation for a single thread.

its in the waiver you signed...

quote:

its in the waiver you signed...

Is it one of those forbidden things? If it is, I didn't know, I apologize, and I'll cease and desist.

There is no on on the face of the planet worth me talking too about this topic ,
For any reason.

Abortion, sex, personal financial , religion, does not get into discussion.

Opinions are like nose holes , most people have two and most smell.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Why are you trying to even engage him?

Just agree to disagree here and leave him alone.

You aren't going to change any minds.

Agreed. This is an irreducible difference of opinion.

quote:

Abortion, sex, personal financial , religion, does not get into discussion.

quote:

You aren't going to change any minds.

quote:

Agreed. This is an irreducible difference of opinion.

I think the good guys are more likely to win converts than the bad guys. You hear about the lifelong satanist who finds Christ. You hear about the lifelong abortion advocate who becomes a staunch anti-abortion activist. It's possible, and I don't think it happens the other way around with nearly the same frequency.