Quality article, it’s nice to see someone looking at the issue of abortion from both viewpoints.

I am a Christian and I vote with the Dems on most things (mostly because the Republican party has moved so far to the right and is wrong on the economy and foreign policy).

Abortion is murder. Plain and simple. That fact trumps any ‘right to choose’ a person thinks she has to abort a baby.

Argue all you want about products of rape and incest (I could live with those exceptions easier than the current abortion on demand) but it is murder, it is not what Christ would have us do and it is morally wrong.

You got it right, Gerald, as usual.

Great article, Gerald. It’s great to see someone address this issue with proper nuance.

Ugh, more one-issue, pro-life voters. You had a good, compelling argument, until this line: “But we, as a society, regardless of our religious leanings or lack thereof, agree on one American truth: No one has a right to another’s life.” What you mean to say is “We, as a society, regardless of our religious leanings or lack thereof, agree on one American truth: Abortion is a necessary evil”. Keep your religion out of my government.

Gerald, are you pro-life or anti-choice? Abortion’s been legal for over 30 years and you have yet been forced to have a man-bortion. You’re usually insightful, but I’m amazed that you are a one-issue voter.

Put it this way: if abortion is illegal, then everything else in the country is perfect?

Gerald, “‘You shall keep my statutes. “‘You shall not crossbreed different kinds of animals. “‘you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; “‘neither shall there come upon on you a garment made of two kinds of material.

The mule abomination on to god!! I’ve seen you in a shirt of cotton and polyester so I must kill you!! I once saw you look over with coveting eyes at the burger of the guy next to you at the Gritty so once again I must kill you.

(on that note which form of biblical death do you want? stone on the chest? lead wick down your throat? beheading? or hanging?) Gerald, If your going to site religion go read it (and try to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, etc…). The bible for the most part says life begins at first breath, since the fetus is not capable of breath till the 3rd trimester this falls in line with most medical based beliefs.

I means go do a little research the Catholic church was for abortion before they were against it, and the reasons have nothing to do with religion.

I’m female and pro-choice. I have extra stake in this because I own a uterus.

Here is why I’m pro-choice:

1) People should not have children they don’t want; unwanted children are more likely to be subject to abuse and more likely to develop depression. Both of those things are horrible to experience.

2) A lot of people can’t AFFORD their unwanted children.

3) Abortion is sometimes medically necessary.

4) Why the hell would you make a rape victim carry her child to term?

5) I’m not cutting my life short for a kid. Do you know how much impingement they put on people’s lives? People with children are statistically less happy than people without children.

6) There are too many people on the earth anyway.

7) Poor women who have more children than they can afford often eat themselves into more debt than poor women without children. Children don’t get fed if their parents can’t afford it. They can’t get abortions; women with more money can just go elsewhere to get an abortion.

8) Most of the pro-life movement seems to be actively anti-contraception as well; what, do you want to push us all back to the Dark Ages?

Pathetic absolutely pathetic, really Gerald?

How many crack-addicted, low birth weight children have you adopted? Talk is cheap.

P.S. Why do all the white folk adopt from China? What’s wrong with American babies? Oh yeah, they’re crack addicts.

Will America please get over Christianity?

Stop trying to force your fairy tale values on my day-to-day living.

Thanks.

Really? WOW……

Yes, let’s take away womens right over their own body’s!

Brilliant!!!!

I am a proud Christian, and strongly pro-life. I am anti-abortion, anti-capital punishment, and anti-war. I am also a proud Democrat voting for Barack Obama. I trust Democrats and Sen. Obama to protect human lives much more than I trust the Republicans and John McCain. Obama will end the War in Iraq and protect us better from acts of terrorism by re-strengthening our global standing. We will see a decline in abortions under an Obama administration, because our nation will have realistic and sensible sex education, proper education and distribution of contraceptives, and a reduction in the situations that often result in abortions. Bush had all three branches of the federal government under his Republican rule for several years, and there was no action whatsoever aimed at repealing Roe v. Wade or drastically reducing abortions. We can’t trust Republicans with this issue—it’s merely political rhetoric they throw around to win votes. We can trust Democrats. During Bill Clinton’s administration, the number of abortions in this country was reduced. I proudly support Obama because I support life, and he does too. His official stances may not call for imprisoning women who have abortions (a rash consequence most Americans, including myself disagree with) but Barack will protect the sanctity of lives in this country and in our world.

This year’s Dem platform includes for the first time language about the importance of prenatal care and supporting mothers who carry their pregnancies to term, rather than just the standard Roe boilerplate. Obama pushed that through.

But here’s the bigger question: What about birth control? Emergency contraception? Care for rape victims? Abortion is just a wedge in the door, which is why the GOP has not and will never overturn Roe, because it would remove their ability to attack these other things.

Oh, and:

“I very much hope Obama will someday see the reason in coming to a consensus grounded in scientific and medical reason of when life begins, and affording that person his or her constitutional rights from that point.”

It would be nice if there was such a consensus, but there isn’t.

Interesting idea. You mean that I can vote for an individual without aligning myself with every single one of their values and policies? Awesome, I can be my own person.

“But we, as a society, regardless of our religious leanings or lack thereof, agree on one American truth: No one has a right to another’s life.”

Oh really? And yet 97.5% of americans cause the death of animals by eating meat?

“I’m not cutting my life short for a kid. Do you know how much impingement they put on people’s lives? People with children are statistically less happy than people without children.”

Wow — that pretty much says it all. It would be inconvenient for you to be pregnant, so you would abort.

Nice. Really. You are a true humanitarian.

I am voting for Obama because he will carry out the office of President better than McCain. The president doesn’t get to decide this issue, not even with Supreme Court appointments. Six Supreme Court members were appointed by Republicans. They have yet to hear an abortion case. Congress does nothing and the president does nothing.

Don’t vote on the Life issue — you are wasting your vote.

It is really nice to see this article and a fair chunk of the commentary are impassioned, but civil, and mostly well-informed.

Now, my own two cents:

“No one has a right to another’s life.”

And yet Mr. Cox seems to be advocating that the lives of millions upon millions of women be turned in to the federal government.

It doesn’t fit.

Gerald, the problem with you struggling with this issue is that you don’t have skin in the game. You’re not a woman, you are not married, you have no reason to understand this difficult issue, but you are so willing to affect people who have a personal connection with the issue.

It’s too simple in your mind. In order for you to understand, you must stop viewing it as only birth control. We all sin, Gerald, but free will gives us the right to choose; don’t play God.

Gerald hit the nail on the head as far as being able to have an opinion on abortion but not vote based on that issue alone. The only real problem comes in his invoking the 13th Amendment. That is the prohibition of slavery and has nothing to do with abortion. What is it that he is referring to there?

I don’t see how you can think that such issues as gay marriage can be free from federal government regulation, but abortion should not be? They both go against christian ideals, but society has taught us that being against gay marriage is politically incorrect. What about when the church said that black and white people shouldn’t be allowed to be married? should the government have gone along with that ideal as well just because christian people in america believe that is what is right? when people who are not religious decide to have an abortion, it has no direct effect on your life, but you trying to push your religious ideals on me by making abortion illegal does effect non religious people directly. stop thinking that everyone in the country thinks the same way as christians, because they do not

Hey has it ever occurred to you that the term is “pro-choice” not “pro-abortion.” That word “choice” means someone can do it or they can’t do it. Most people I know who are pro-choice wouldn’t ever get an abortion, but feel they shouldn’t infringe upon the rights of others if they feel they should get one.

Now doesn’t that make sense?

Get your values out of my life.

The right to life does not apply to ALL life, it applies to human life. Thus the issue is protecting actual human life. A clump of cells residing in a woman’s body is NOT an actual human life. It is a POTENTIAL human life.

It is pro-life to uphold the right of a woman (an actual human) to her own body. To force her to sacrifice for the sake of a non-human - a clump of cells, which is part of her body - is a violation of her rights.

Rights apply to actual humans not to clumps of cells that have the potential to become humans.

so that’s why you’re married, right?

No one has a right to another’s life.”

Oh really? And yet 97.5% of Americans cause the death of animals by eating meat?

Really? really? go blow a cow you PETA freak

Gerald,

Please stop equating all Christians with reactionary political belief. I know many Catholics and Protestants who believe that the lives of real human beings - civilians in Iraq, the inner-city poor, those on death row - are a more important consideration than a first-trimester fetus, which has no capacity to feel pain or experience consciousness.

Thanks, Kyle

Gerald,

I appreciate your perspective, but I don’t think you’ve thought this through clearly. As I see it, this is your argument.

(1) Fetuses are innocent and have rights (specifically, I think you’re concerned with the right to life - we don’t care about fetuses right to move about freely, vote, etc.). (2) No one has a right to another’s life. (3) Women have rights to bodily autonomy, but once a life is “at stake”, the right to life supersedes the woman’s right to bodily autonomy. (4) Therefore, abortion is morally impermissible.

First of all, your argument begs the question, since it is quite controversial whether or fetuses have a right to life. Being alive doesn’t mean you have the right to life. It’s a very limited right. We don’t give it to non-human animals, plants, fungi, protozoa, etc. We think it’s ok to kill ants, flies, mosquitos, and the like. It seems just false to say that we give the right to life to anything that has human DNA; after all, we don’t give it to sperm or eggs. We allow practices like in vitro fertilization and embryonic stem cell research, so most of us don’t think embryos have the right to life. This is, I think, the main problem with your argument, but it isn’t the only problem.

Your second premise is misleading. Of course no one believes that one has a right to another’s life in the sense that they have a right to complete control over another person’s life. What you really mean (I think) is that no one has a right to kill another person. Of course, we often think we do have the right to kill another person, e.g., in cases of self-defense, war, capital punishment, etc.

Does the right to life ALWAYS supersede the right to bodily autonomy? Judith Jarvis Thomson debunked this argument 37 years ago in 1971. Let’s say you wake up one day in bed with a man connected to you by a cord who is completely dependent upon you for his survival. Most people think there is some point at which you can cut the cord.

As a final general point, I think that Christians who aren’t single-issue voters on abortion in general aren’t sincere in their belief that fetuses are morally equivalent to fully-developed adult children. If they are sincere, then they’re morally bankrupt. If you really believe that 75 million innocent persons have been slaughtered over the past 40 years, how can you justify voting for the candidate who supports a fairer tax code, better energy policy, or better health care proposal? How could a person who held such a belief sleep peacefully, knowing that they could have helped prevent this slaughter had they only changed their vote to the pro-life candidate?

Jim,

That’s just silly. Are you honestly arguing that fetuses aren’t ALIVE or HUMAN?

Gerald,

I must say I am impressed with yor article. I am usually not a fan of your viewpoint, and I continue to read your articles every week in hopes of us agreeing on something. This my friend we agree on.

Anonymous (October 27, 2008 @ 8:08am) i completely agree with her on this one. gerald..you are NOT a woman..you don’t have a uterus..you have no say in this argument. and on the subject of your christian values..don’t bring them into this.

If all life is equal, then infants and toddlers should be allowed to vote for their recently graduated fetus agenda. What gives, 18 year old babies can vote, but not infants?

Hey Jim—saying it’s a part of her body is just woefully scientifically inaccurate. It has a different genome, possibly different depending on genetics blood type. They don’t share a brain, and they don’t truly share a circulatory system. It’s a different organism. Get your uninformed biology out of my argument. The folks who call it a parasite on the mother are really more scientifically accurate than you are. But nobody likes that kind of terminology, do they?

If a may throw a metaphor out there: abortion is like shooting at something you hear coming at you on a dark street. It COULD be nothing, but then again, wouldn’t you feel awful if it was some guy walking his dog?

“I very much hope Obama will someday see the reason in coming to a consensus grounded in SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL reason of when life begins, and affording that person his or her constitutional rights from that point.”

Apparently Gerald Cox is the scion of reason in the medical community, Economics is a hobby.

Perhaps, medical reason has determined that life begins when a being is capable of living outside the womb. Read Roe v. Wade. It at least tries to draw a REASONABLE line between women’s rights and baby murder.

Though, I agree that men probably have vaginas deeper than their opinions on abortion.

October 27, 2008 @ 1:12pm - your comment is a low blow. At least Gerald has the balls to man up; and guessing from your commment you wouldn’t so if you’re going to use your pair and not pay the reprocautions of it why don’t you lose your pair.

To October 27 - 12:30pm

Gerald is married, you idiot. Don’t say something unless you know it’s true. It’s too simple in YOUR mind.

I just LOVE how men, who will never have to face the decision of terminating their pregnancy, can wax philosophy and cast judgement on millions of living, breathing, voting women who will die from infections and complications due to illegal abortions, should they have their way.

As a Christian, you’re probably familiar with Jesus and His saying of letting he who has not sinned cast the first stone. Oh that’s right, you can pick and choose your religious teachings to suit your argument!

I can’t believe this drivel made it into Google News.

“Wow — that pretty much says it all. It would be inconvenient for you to be pregnant, so you would abort.” Why do pro-lifers think abortion is the only way to avoid having children? I’d bet my right thumb that she uses multiple forms of birth control. ABORTION IS A LAST RESORT.

“Gerald, the problem with you struggling with this issue is that you don’t have skin in the game. You’re not a woman, you are not married, you have no reason to understand this difficult issue, but you are so willing to affect people who have a personal connection with the issue.” He’s married and has a son.

Young Christians like me were brought up to believe that mixing religion and politics is both bad theology and bad politics. Keep your religious beliefs out of the law of the land, and keep your filthy hands off my body!

Another man thinking he knows best what women should be able to do with their bodies.

Typical.

Not only do I believe abortion should be legal, I also believe retroactive abortion should be legal under some circumstances, such as the submission of a comment as blind and thoughtless as 2:24.

Lulz at 1:12

No one has the right to inflict their religious beliefs on anyone else.

The embryo/feotus, whether it is a person or not, does not have the right to inhabit the pregnant womans body against her will. No one has the right to use anothers body, even for survival. That’s why one cannot be forced to donate blood, bone marrow, or a vital organ. To say that the embryo/feotus has the right to inhabit the womans body against her will is to give the feotus MORE rights than the woman herself. Not only that, but it VIOLATES her basic human right to not have her body hijacked.

The brain activity that defines life does not begin until well into the second trimester. Before then, the whole “killing” nonsense isn’t even remotely applicable.

Abortion is a MORAL issue, not a LEGAL one. No one has the right to inflict their morality on other people.

Why do people keep saying “get your religion out of my life” when all the writer has done is write an EDITORIAL about his opinions on an issue? If religion is a set of beliefs that people (and not just Christians) uphold to understand their world, everyone arguably has their own “religion.” So I don’t think there is anything wrong with the writer voicing his opinion about how he understands his world, and there would be nothing wrong with a pro-choice proponent voicing his opinion about how he understands his world. Let’s be respectful of everyone’s opinion.