Weisberg squarely missed the Pro-Life point in this article. The bottom line is that WE (pro-lifers) believe that all life is sacred...period...even if incovenient. Using statistics to point out what irresponsible teenagers' futures hold addresses only the symptoms and results of unplanned pregnancies...and not the true problem with murdering innocent children.

One of the bedrock principles in ethics is that one should and cannot do harm in order to do good. For example, a doctor saving the life of a 10-year-old by transplanting a heart from a 70-year-old who was in a coma violates this principle. Therefore, "correcting" a teenage pregnancy (and by the authors' point of view preserving a good life for the female) by killing an unborn child does just that...does harm to one in order to do good with another. And that's exactly what has happened almost 49,000,000 times in the US since Roe v. Wade (source CDC and NRTL). That right, 49 million lives lost, and on the order of 300 children aborted for every 1000 children born.

How utilitarian...and casual...our society has become within this culture of death. And just because most young girls choose to raise their children instead of giving them up for adoption is an education issue and evidence of poor parenting...not more ammo for abortion. A better idea is to attack the real problems...personal responsibiltiy, parenting and education...instead of resorting to abortion to hide our real problems.

Until this country can genuinely respect the rights of all human beings it lacks the moral high ground. The author's article, while well written, unfortunately speaks to the symptoms and not the real issue...which is killiing innocent life. And after all...the measure of any society is how it protects those who can't defend themselves.

How do you reconcile this view with the usual (I don't know what your personal position on this issue is of course) approval by the religious right of the death penalty and killing in wars?

I am seriously interested in an answer to this question, not just trying to annoy you. It would seem to me that "Thou shalt not kill" taken as a command, would mean just that in all cases.

I agree Texas41.

My church does oppose capital punishment as well as wars that don't meet just war criteria (e.g., WWII would qualify). Those that feel differently point out that capital punishment seeks to serve justice on criminals, war involves killing those who would kill you, but abortion takes the life of a completely innocent human being.

Thank you. Your church seems consistent. Do you know how those others explain "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord?"

Actually, both views are consistent. The other view is you protect the innocent but punish the guilty. Babies are innocents and shouldn't be punished for the sins of the mother -- but adult child rapists or murderers are guilty, and for the good of society should be removed. That is only inconsistent to the very small minded. (IMHO).

Personally, I would hope that victims will CHOOSE not to have capital punishment, and plead for the accusers life. It shows forgiveness and growth. But in order to do that, we need the choice of there being capital punishment in the first place. The difference is I'd like the choice of capital punishment, and never to use it. The Democrats would like to remove choice, again.

To answer your question Lisa, "How do you reconcile this view with the usual (I don't know what your personal position on this issue is of course) approval by the religious right of the death penalty and killing in wars?"...

You are absolutely correct to point out these inconsistencies. First, the death penalty. If you follow the ethical arguement, the death penalty does harm in order to do good. If you support my arguement, the death penalty should be outlawed. As a side note, the legal cost of putting an inmate to death is greater than supporting him or her for a lifetime...surprising. Again, I think the measure of our society should be how we treat our helpless...a locked up criminal fits this definition. Not harsh enough for some? I think the death penalty provides an easy way out for a criminal to escape the consequences of his actions. Living one's remaining life without hope of freedom is punishment much worse to me. But society has to be firm...and not ever allow them to be paroled.

Killing in war. This is a tougher issue. Just War theory supports the use of force to correct and prevent injustices...and specifically killing in order to prevent an enemy's continued march of injustices, murder, etc. The safety net is that it is our civilian leadership that determines when we kill, not the military, and they answer to the people. Essentially, it's a man-made answer to an age-old problem of governments protecting its citizens. For order to prevail and chaos to cease, governments and peoples have to know the limits.

To fill in the blanks for you...

I'm a military officer.

I am Catholic.

I am pro-life.

Take care.

Tragically, Weisberg and others like him here will continue to miss the point about abortion, apparently because they are moral relativists. For one person the baby is a choice, for another the baby is a baby.

Thank you.

No it is not consistent to clain to be "pro-life" and yet reserving the right to "punish the guilty". Who gets to decide what is good for society? Wouldn't the world have been a better place if the "innocent babies" who became Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini had been aborted?

As soon as you argue that some people can be killed "for the good of society" then you have no basis except personal opinion for opposing abortion. After all, who better than the host woman to determine what is the best for society in her circumstance.

No it isn't consistent at all. It is hypocritical to support the death penalty - where its ok to kill people who are inconvenient - and oppose abortion because you think it is killing people who are inconvenient.

the concept of "Just War" is by definition moral relitivism.

You are a moral relitivist just like Wiesberg.

And you are imposiing YOUR BELIEF on others. the accurate FACTUAL statement is

For one person a clump of cells is a baby, for another it is just a clump of cells.

Well you are consistent in opposing the Death Penalty, but in supporting Just War, you open the very rationale you oppose for abortion.

Just War theory supports the use of force to correct and prevent injustices

OK and who gets to determine what is an injustice that justifies killing? Individuals. At the end of the day the decision to kill somone to improve society's lot in the Just War Theory sits with individual persons.

That is indistinguishable from using abortion to improve society's lot.

The only difference is Who's Beliefs you are using and whom you allow to make the choice. But in the end you are acknowledging the right and reasonableness of individuals killing others who they deem inconvenient for the betterment of society.

That's the reasoning that Stalin used

That's the reasoning we used in Iraq and Afghanistan

That's the reasoning Al Qaeda used for 9/11

You can rationalize that there is a difference, but you are doing so out of your own personal prejudices. And thus you have no basis for objecting to abortion.

In the end, we live in a grey world...greyer because people such as yourself can't differentiate between killing others out of necessity (Just War Theory) and simple murder for convenience. Just War theory is reserved for those highly educated whom we as the people elect to office...ie. to carry out the will of the governed.

Yes, it's a necessary evil, but as you lay down to sleep tonight, you can be thankful for 1) that your government cares to protect your safety and freedom, and 2) that individuals like me give up 20 years of our lives to carry it out...and possibly more.

A 16-yr-old pregnant female getting an abortion cannot and should not be compared to war to protect citizens and their way of life. If you are improving society with abortion...go ask any young lady 5 years after getting one if her life is better or worse. Studies show that 90 percent end up regretting it...because they eventually realize they killed a human being.

Personal prejudice...I'll put 2 master's degrees and an Air Force Academy education up against yours anytime.

Best of luck to you.

Ah yes - classic conservative approach - someone disagrees with you in a way that challenges the premises of your belief and your only response is to name call. I'll take my masters work, ivy league education over a military acadamy anytime.

Nothing my government has done with its military forces in the last 20 years has done anything to increase either my freedom or my security. In point of fact as the NIE and the RAND corporation both conclude, the actions of our military in the so called "Just War" has actually made you, me and fibber McGee dramatically LESS safe.

Why I should have respect for mercenaries spending 20 years sucking on the governemnt teat and then rationalizing their killing of brown humans ostensibly in my name is beyond me.

It is fortunate that we have civillian control of the military (sort of) because otherwise the self-rationalizng justifications that folks like you bring to bear in killing some people (typically brown ones) while forcing others in to involuntary servitude (women) to "save" others, would lead us to armageddon.

May you learn to reason.

There really isn't a contradiction. With respect to the death penalty, a pro-life pro-death penalty advocate would simply say that rights are automatically granted but not automatically kept. They are contingent upon respecting the rights of others.

With respect to war, the only time the killing of innocents would be justified is when it directly and clearly leads to saving even more innocent lives. The only analog with respect to abortion would be to directly and clearly save the life of the mother. This is a virtually non-existent scenario. Only 3% of abortions have anything to do with with the mother's health, and most of those are minor risks, not virtually certain death.