# data[].attributes.body
I wouldn't say it's a legalization of murder because that's extremely harsh in my opinion. Depending on when you choose to get this procedure I feel like it could be worse than others. At 4 weeks the embryo is the size of a poppy seed and if someone was to terminate then I wouldn't consider that murder by any means. I feel like the decision is a given right but there are other options one should consider before making such a big one.

# data[].attributes.body
Abortion is not a legalization of murder in my opinion. Women should be allowed to have this right, as it isn't a politician's right to tell a woman what she can or can not do.

# data[].attributes.body
I learned from the article that cinco de mayo actually started out as a way to market and making money in  the US and mexico doesn't celebrate the holiday as much as americans.

# data[].attributes.body
I think abortion is never an answer for any reason. Babies are miracles from God, we dont have the right to hold control over other peoples lifes and that baby has its own right and dont want to die so thats murder of an infant which is wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
i think abortion is alright in some cases like if she's a college athlete or if she's on her way to college, but if she's having an abortion because of the babies gender then that's just wrong and inhumane.

# data[].attributes.body
i don't believe in a abortion so i think it is a legalization of a murder. Even dough a women has a right to do certain things this is till taking someone life even dough the baby make not be fully devolved yet. While looking throught your articles i just dont understand why some people will get an abortion.

# data[].attributes.body
Is abortion a legalization of murder or a woman's god given right?

# data[].attributes.body
I really love your picture because it just shows that babies are so precious. It just shows that even babies that are born early have a will to live and want to fight.

# data[].attributes.body
I have seen a lot of good arguments on my cohurt page, both pro life and pro choice. Although every time I see the argument about the woman needing to have control over her own body it upsets me. I am pro-life and im trying to protect that unborn child's body. To me its just so wrong and unethical to basically legalize murder-this is how I view abortions. Also I saw that someone said a woman should have the right to abort a child if they have a condition that may shorten their life....NO I know a family who chose to have their baby even after knowing he had CDH and may not live full term or even after he was born. she also took many chances and risked her own life to have this child. People like her are proof and show the responsibilities of a real woman, protecting her child no matter what. this is a mothers job.

# data[].attributes.headline
If your pronounced dead when your heart stops beating... why aren't you pronounced alive when it starts beating

# data[].attributes.subject
If your pronounced dead when your heart stops beating... why aren't you pronounced alive when it starts beating

# data[].attributes.body
There is a fetal heartbeat 18 days after conception.

# data[].attributes.body
"The right to life is the first amoung human rights"-Pope Francis.

This Is so true, in the well known statement, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Women fight for their rights everyday, I wish unborn babies could fight back but they cant, they're thought of as just a pregnancy or a problem that can be easily solved by an abortion. Abortion is murder, that's the simple fact. If life is the first thing in our human rights why don't babies have this right too!!?? LIFE is a precious thing and no one has the right to take that away from anyone.

# data[].attributes.body
This photo contains a quote from Albert Einstein that reads, "There are two ways to live your life one is as though nothing is a miracle  the other is as though everything is a miracle". In my opinion every child is a miracle, and deserves to be treated that way. This photo is just of a small newborn baby in the hands of its father. we all know that no matter how small a baby is inside its mother that it is a human being, a miracle, not "a pregnancy". Pregnancy is when a woman is carrying an unborn baby is their stomach no matter the size, that baby is a human being and deserves  a chance at a life.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like this article makes a lot of good points, especially about the governments take on abortion, one thing was that they deemed an unborn child not human!-WHAT that's shocks me. This article has a lot of bias although I like it because I can agree with most of the statements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Abortion and the Unraveling of American Society"

Archbishop Daniel W. Kucera, O.S.B
Archbishop of Dubuque

CONTENTS

II. Why Abortion Is Wrong
III. Other Views Considered
IV. Social Effects of Abortion Policy
V. The Need for Moral Education
VI. Conclusion: An Appeal

I. Speaking Out Again

Among the issues which divide our nation today, that of abortion is surely one of the most troublesome. Almost daily we hear arguments on one side or the other. Crowds demonstrate and politicians debate. Many grow weary of it all, close their ears against the torrent of words and wish the problem would just go away. In such an atmosphere, is it worthwhile to speak out one more time? Will more words make any difference?

But the problem will not go away. We must speak. In fact, the situation grows steadily worse in ways that go beyond the sad fact of abortion itself. Such an important social policy as this cannot have narrowly limited effects. The fact of widespread abortion and the attitudes it encourages have a profound impact on the moral consciousness of our society. We must face that impact and ask just what kind of society we really want. The question is especially urgent as elections approach and we determine who should be entrusted with public office.

Much has already been written from a religious and theological perspective about abortion. These reflections, rather, will focus on abortion as a cancer on American society, eating away at the values and moral principles that have sustained this country for two hundred years. First, however, it will be useful to review briefly the fundamental reasons of opposing abortion in the first place and then address the usual arguments advanced in its favor.

II. Why Abortion is Wrong

In the heat of debate since the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, many have lost sight of the conviction which inspired western societies to outlaw this procedure until very recent times. This historic opposition was based on a principle still held with deep sincerity by substantial numbers of American citizens: abortion is wrong because it ends the life of an innocent human being.

Philosophers and theologians, however, do not all agree that the unborn must be classified as human. The Supreme Court cited this division of opinion and concluded that it is beyond the competence of legislators or judge to settle the matter. From this lack of competence, the court drew illogical conclusions. It decided that the preborn child may be treated as non-human and went on to declare that there is actually a right to do so. Common sense, however, would dictate that what is even doubtfully human must be treated as human. Any other course ushers in a host of evil consequences. The court's decision supports the idea that human life is not a continuous reality extending from conception to death. Rather, certain standards must be fulfilled before personhood is recognized and protected by law.

Opposition to this frightening conclusion lies at the basis of all arguments against abortion. Too often, the sincerity and depth of this conviction about the personhood of the unborn is ignored when opposing arguments are put forth. As a result, most "pro-choice" statements are instances of the classic logical error called "begging the question." That which is the very point of the disagreement, whether or not the unborn child is a human person, is assumed to be settled in the negative. On the contrary, we must remember that even the Supreme Court specifically declined to settle it. Acceptance or rejection of any argument on abortion, therefore, still depends upon the answer to the basic questions: is the infant in the womb a human person?

III. Other Views Considered

Keeping in mind this most fundamental issue of human life, we now examine the various arguments advanced in favor of the present abortion policy. They may be grouped into several types.

A. Arguments About Rights

It is said that abortion is a private matter and that women have a right to that privacy. To this we respond that if the unborn is a human being, then abortion is certainly not a private matter in the sense that only the mother is concerned. It very seriously concerns the child whose life is at stake. Pregnancy is a unique moral situation. Whatever may be its burdensome aspects, they do not justify the violation of an innocent human being's inalienable right to live.

Secondly, abortion is a public matter because the policy which permits it has profound and widespread social effects. Those effects will be treated later at some length. Here it is enough to note that proponents of abortion unwittingly admit its public character when they argue the social advantages of the present policy.

Related to the question of privacy is the assertion that only the pregnant woman has the right to make the "decision." Here the fallacy of "begging the question" is clearest. If what is growing in the womb is human, there is no decision to be made, not by the mother, not by religious leaders, not by politicians, not by anyone. In these circumstances, it is beyond the moral competence of any human being to decide whether or not another shall live.

There is also much discussion of the rights of women to health services and safe medical procedures. These are unquestionable rights, not only of women but of all human beings. They are all too frequently ignored in our own country and around the world. Nevertheless, we may not morally exercise any right to the detriment of the prior rights of others. When individual rights conflict, the resolution must always be in favor of the more fundamental right. The right to life has priority over all others. Even killing in self-defense can only be justified when life itself is threatened under conditions of unjust aggression.

To put the matter in other terms, we must not do evil in order that good may come of it. Privacy, autonomous decision-making and personal health are all human goods. We have the right to pursue them and governments must provide the conditions under which they may be achieved. But to achieve them at the expense of the life of another human being is to use an evil means to accomplish a good end.

B. Arguments from Social Utility

The second type of argument focuses on the social advantages of present abortion practices. It is a common contradiction to insist that abortion is a thoroughly private matter and then vehemently defend its usefulness as social policy. In addition to that general comment, specific arguments of this sort merit specific objections.

One such argument asserts that we cannot in any case stop abortions. "They will be performed anyway, no matter what the law says. Why not keep them legal and safe?" Once again, the position makes sense only if we accept the opinion that a child in the womb is not human. There certainly are some behaviors which the state finds it wiser to regulate than to outlaw, even though they may cause considerable damage in society. Alcohol consumption is a case in point. But if the child in the womb is a human person, this approach is clearly unacceptable. We cannot authorize the destruction of innocent human life just because there are those who "will do it anyway." The state cannot be obliged to ensure safe access to a procedure which is destructive of a fundamental right -- a right the state is obliged to protect. Moreover, one of the purposes of law is to educate and inform the public conscience. Since laws enshrine a society's values, we do not rate their wisdom on the basis of whether or not they are universally obeyed.

Still others support abortion as a means of family limitation or population control. Again, the response is obvious. The humanity of the unborn child makes abortion an evil means for achieving these ends, which in themselves are not necessarily or absolutely good ends.

There is another opinion which holds that the abortion policy is beneficial as a means of preventing the birth of unwanted and defective children. Such a notion warrants the strongest possible condemnation. To say that it is better to terminate a child's life than to permit it to live when it may be unwanted or defective, is an argument which would be ludicrous if it were not so cruel and dangerous. It raises the frightening prospect of a society which might soon decide to "perfect" itself by culling human beings like a flock of chickens, based upon whatever qualities are currently deemed useful or fashionable. This is not unduly alarmist. Abortion is already being suggested, both here and abroad, as a means of gender-selection. Indeed, the entire "eugenic" approach leads to a very somber question: how long will it be before some contend that the only difference between a "defective" in the womb and a "defective" in an institution is that the one can be seen and the other cannot? Is society then to decide that all "unwanted" humans may be disposed of?

Still other voices are raised on behalf of the poor. It is said that we must not only keep abortion legal, we must make sure that all have access to it, even at public expense. First of all, even if abortion is held to be a right is by no means clear that governments are required to give positive assistance in the exercise of that "right" nor that those who are in conscience opposed to abortion should be forced to support it through taxation.

Also, this supposed concern for the poor is spurious. We still need to address the necessity of adequate housing, education, healthcare and jobs for millions of citizens. These problems are not solved by championing the "right" of these poor citizens to abort their children. Given the ethnic character of poverty in our nation, the position is at least unconsciously racist.

The issue of poverty brings up an another argument which is not so much a pro-abortion stance as an accusation against pro-life advocates. We are accused of being concerned only with the unborn and of ignoring the needs of those already born. Insofar as this may be true of some who champion the cause of human life it is an accusation not to be taken lightly. Those who struggle on behalf of life must examine their thinking on all social issues and strive for consistency. It is not only possible but mandatory that we be concerned for both the born and the unborn.

C. Political Arguments

Some opinions address not so much the abortion issue in itself as the processes involved in the attempt to influence legislation. These are political approaches, in the broad sense of the term.

We hear, for example, that it is impossible or unwise to try to legislate morality. This is simply untrue. A large proportion of the laws of any state are precisely about morality. They forbid this or that act because it is deemed immoral, that is, harmful to persons. Thus murder, theft and various forms of fraud are forbidden because they are wrong. Our claim is that abortion too should be forbidden because it is wrong, that is, harmful to persons.

Very often, when people say you can't legislate morality, they are referring to sexual morality, as if that were the only kind of morality there is. The premise is false in itself because some sexual matters, such as prostitution and pornography, are certainly within the competence of legislators. More importantly, however, the argument is beside the point because abortion is not a sexual issue. It is a matter of justice, a matter of the denial of an essential human right.

In this connection we must also keep in mind the difference between morality and legality. An act is not moral simply because the state permits it. For one thing, the state does not legislate on each and every moral issue. More to the point here, though, is the fact that the permissive laws of a state can sometimes be wrong. Slavery was an instance of this. In our day the prime example is abortion.

Another argument in the political order insists that it would be improper in a democratic society to forbid abortion because such a law would constitute the imposition of private religious views upon an entire population. It would amount to the church imposing its views on non-members. Well-meaning defenders of prenatal life sometimes attempt to counter this view by pointing out that opposition to abortion is spread throughout the population, not confined to one or another church. True as this is, it is not the most complete answer to the charge. It is far more important to deny the charge that respect for the life of the unborn is strictly a religious issue. It does not depend upon any sectarian creed.

We must keep in mind the basic contention: abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. People of all religions and of no religion agree that it is wrong to take the life of the innocent. This is a matter having to do with the ordering of a just society. Given our conviction about the humanity of the unborn, we have not only the right but also the obligation to attempt to see respect for that humanity once more enshrined in law.

Opponents will return to the offensive here and say that all this misses the point. That the embryo or fetus is human, they will say, is a religious belief. No, it isn't. That the preborn infant is human is a conviction that can be drawn from scientific fact and right reason or common sense. It is taught by some churches as a part of their general moral instruction but that does not make it a strictly religious matter, as if it were equivalent to celebrating Christmas or abstaining from meat during Lent. That life as such is to be respected, however, is indeed a tenet of most religions. This is the true explanation for the predominance of believers within the pro-life movement.

There is a more thoughtful argument of the political variety which is based upon the necessity of compromise in a pluralistic society. Since the nation is clearly and strongly divided on this issue, the argument runs, rational compromise is required. In the interest of public order, let those who think abortion is wrong refrain from it and let them give to those who think otherwise the freedom to follow their own consciences. This is the essence of the "pro-choice" approach. Some who hold in principle that abortion is immoral, nevertheless find this a reasonable and realistic solution. It is a formula which has worked well in the history of democratic societies. Unfortunately, it is not an appropriate solution in this case.

"Why not?" we are asked. "Why must you be so uncompromising, so unreasonable?" The answer is to return, tiresome though it may be, to that basic conviction about the life of the unborn child. We are not justified in compromising over the deaths of millions of innocent persons. Lesser goods might be of compromised for the sake of the political order, but not life itself. The very basis of our disagreement prevents a partial or expedient solution. We must continue to demand nothing less than full respect for all human life. Compromise is often prudent and desirable but there are matters we must "go to the wall for." If political realities prevent success, so be it. But integrity itself forbids us to abandon the struggle.

A final political approach disparages what is called "single-issue voting." In response, we may point out that single-issue voting is hardly new and hardly confined to the abortion debate. Of greater importance, though, is the fact that this issue is so fundamental and so far-reaching in its implications that it does qualify as "single." This fact will be examined in detail further on.

D. Arguments from Sympathy

These arguments are easily answered in view of the basic conviction about the right the unborn child to continue living. It must be admitted, however, that some of these approaches are very influential because of their emotional impact. They are often embodied in dramatic presentations which arouse great sympathy.

Nearly all these approaches could begin with the phrase, "You'd feel differently if..." That is, if you were the pregnant woman, if you were the parents, if it were your daughter if you were not a celibate clergyman etc. No one denies that one would feel the impact of the abortion issue more strongly at close quarters. Emotions do indeed play a role in our moral judgments. Moreover, the culpability of those who opt for abortion under trying circumstances may be diminished. Nevertheless, it must be repeated over and over again: we may not use the death of another to relieve our own suffering or inconvenience.

The issue of abortion demands not only emotion but a great deal of sober reflection. It is rapidly altering the very self-consciousness of our society, its attitudes and its values. We now turn to this larger social arena.

IV. Social Effects of Abortion Policy

What follows is highly critical of attitudes and trends in American society today. It is the duty of a Christian leader to address such issues because the Gospel we believe in commands us to be actively engaged in the search for a just and humane society on this earth. However, these are matters which concern us all, believers and unbelievers alike. It does not require religious faith to discern the many dangerous social tendencies which are fostered or reinforced by the same mentality which tolerates and approves the present abortion policy. Concern for these issues arises not from any sectarian creed but from broad principles of justice and social value.

A. Social Policy and Social Attitudes

Like the arguments in favor of abortion and often corresponding closely to them, these distressing tendencies may be grouped into categories. Each category will be addressed in turn. First, though, an underlying premise must be clarified. The assertion that abortion policy is related in one way or another to each of these tendencies rests upon the conviction that a social policy not only reflects but also reinforces existing attitudes and helps create new ones. These attitudes have significant effects beyond the area of individual life encompassed by the policy itself. The more important the policy, the more widespread and profound are its effects. Abortion directly touches upon sexual mores, reproduction, families and, of course, life itself. Attitudes and tendencies surrounding a policy of such gravity must certainly have repercussions throughout the entire social structure.

B. Individualism and Social Conscience

Americans traditionally pride themselves on being "rugged individualists." Whatever its origins, this trait has in many ways served us well. It has often been accompanied by such values as responsibility, autonomy and personal productivity. Like all human traits, however, in its extreme form it becomes a severe liability. The line between healthy individualism and self-centeredness is all too easily blurred. One consequence is the steady erosion of the sense of social responsibility. This unhappy development is evident today throughout our social structure.

Some refer to the past ten years as the "me" decade, dominated by the "me" generation. Lonely, self-centered and often violent "heroes" abound in movies and on television. A man in a TV commercial buys a new copier because, he says, he's thinking of "the most important person in my life...me." Take care of yourself, take time for yourself, are you doing enough for YOU? Popular movements, vaguely called "New Age," are elaborate methods to help us leap into "higher" states of isolated consciousness.

Further examples are superfluous. A most fitting image of our society appears in any large city in the late afternoon: thousands of cars crawling or stopped on the freeways, each containing only the driver, burning fuel, polluting the atmosphere, wrapped in frustrated isolation.

In the midst of this, civil libertarians exert great energy in the defense of individual rights. A Supreme Court Justice, now retired, once counseled activists, in view of the increasingly "conservative" complexion of the high court, to turn their attention to state constitutions as untapped sources for the extension of individual liberties, as if the entire purpose of courts and laws were to maximize individual freedom, defined as the absence of social restraint.

What is most insidious about these attitudes is that they contain such a large element of truth. We do need to take care of ourselves. Self-affirmation and a good self-image are essential. Public institutions must not be allowed to oppress the individual. Society must assure a wide range of opportunity for each member. But there is the matter of balance. Laws and institutions are established to mediate between individual rights and the public welfare. Many feel that we are rapidly losing this balance. The sense of social responsibility is in decline. Governments and institutions are thought to exist only to maximize individual advantage while the concept of the common good is ignored.

It would be foolish to assert that an abortion policy is totally responsible for this state of affairs. But thoughtful citizens must ask to what extent that policy grows out of and reinforces our almost pathological individualism. Despite all the rhetoric about health, the poor, rape and incest, it is clear that a substantial percentage of abortions are performed for reasons of personal convenience. What is at stake is often my career, my earning power, my leisure time, my material advantages. It is no accident that the "right" to abortion was found in the right to privacy. To make that dubious connection palatable, abortion advocates have contrived to slice the first few months off the continuum of human development and treat individuals in that stage as non-persons.

C. Attitudes to Life

It might seem at first glance that a lessening of respect for life could not be a social tendency linked to abortion since those who support that procedure reject, however mistakenly, the very idea that a human life is involved. This would be a welcome conclusion if it would bear up under close scrutiny. Unfortunately, it does not.

Consider that the rhetoric of "pro-choice" advocates studiously avoids the issue of life. Various subterfuges are used in an attempt to focus on other aspects of the debate which are proclaimed to be the "real" issues. In any argument, when one side pointedly ignores a statement which the other side repeatedly affirms, it is usually evidence of a bad conscience. It is possible that many "pro-choice" people are not really convinced of the non-human character of the unborn child. If this is so, we have a situation of massive self-deception touching on the very sacredness of human life. The willingness to act in such dubious circumstances does not speak well for the future of our nation's respect for life at any stage.

That such doubt must exist flows from the very logic of the situation. Arguments for abortion logically apply throughout the course of pregnancy. It is therefore impossible to see why the termination of a child's life just before delivery differs morally from the same act ten minutes after delivery. Does personhood magically arrive with the severance of the umbilical cord? Reason dictates that if humanity is denied at any given stage in the continuum, we are left to wonder when it does become present. Clearly, once conception has occurred, if we make human personhood dependent upon any qualifications at all, we open up chilling possibilities for the future. The import of this precedent, so thinly disguised with specious arguments, cannot be lost on the general conscience of the public.

There is yet another way in which an abortion mentality works to erode our attitudes toward life. Many of the arguments which claim to champion the poor are "quality-of-life" approaches which embody highly questionable values. Efforts to abolish the suffering caused by poverty must be applauded and supported. But sometimes we hear that if an unborn child will lack certain material advantages, it would be better to prevent that child's birth. Besides its disregard for life as such, this opinion implies that the value of a life is to be measured in material terms. By such standards we would have to conclude that millions of our fellow citizens should never have been born. What does this say about our concept of the purpose of life and our notions of human fulfillment?

This whole complex of attitudes toward life and its purposes can easily lead to programs of eugenics and euthanasia characteristic of tyrannical governments. Indeed, voices in favor of such programs are already heard in our land.

D. Escape from Responsibility

Increasingly, our society is encouraging dependence on other agencies as a substitute for conscientious social responsibility in the population at large. The two principal surrogates are technology and government.

Abortion is part of a whole complex of attitudes which fosters dependence upon technology to deliver us from the consequences of our own actions. We need do nothing about pollution of the environment for science will come to our rescue. We can smoke, drink, take drugs, overeat and neglect our health because medicine will take care of us. We can conduct our sex lives without thought or responsibility because when all else fails we can always abort, safely, easily and with public support.

Government, too, can be structured in such a way that it will take care of us when we might otherwise have to take responsibility for own behavior. While the weighty matters of health, education, housing and jobs are neglected, while Congress sits impotent in the face of a crushing national debt, crumbling infrastructure and a deteriorating environment, we grow daily more vociferous in our demand that government provide all of us with the means to avoid the consequences of our own self-indulgence. As such attitudes undermine social institutions we slip toward chaos. The insecurity and fear which accompany a society in chaos will inevitably produce an infantile yearning for a firmer governmental hand. Thus do chaotic societies become fertile ground for the rise of dictatorships, whether of the right or of the left. Freedom understood as unbridled indulgence gives way to that "escape from freedom" which is the pathological desire for order at all costs. Big Brother is in the wings, awaiting our call.

E. Political Integrity

Any critique of contemporary American politics must start with the voters. While we demand more and more of government, we refuse to get involved, fail to vote and, when we do vote, consider only our own narrow interests. Such attitudes encourage and support the deterioration of political integrity among officials and candidates.

Seeing these attitudes and wanting to keep their jobs, political candidates are tempted to turn to interest-groups, PACs, and the 20-second sound-byte. The democratic process continues to erode. Government is up for sale to the highest bidder. We look long and hard to find candidates who combine personal integrity, the desire to serve and an understanding of leadership in office. Politicians posture instead of telling the truth and the public becomes yet more cynical about it all.

Abortion policy becomes symptom and symbol of this sorry state of affairs. Good people on both sides of the issue are increasingly aware that their convictions are being cynically manipulated for the sake of votes. Of course, there are candidates and office-holders whose private convictions and public efforts coincide. Whether we agree them or not, we must at least respect these few for their integrity.

Candidates who try to have it both ways say, "I'm personally opposed to abortion but don't want to impose my view on others." The ploy is so transparent that it is amazing how effective it can be. Every such candidate for office should be subjected to one simple question: "Just exactly why are you personally opposed to abortion?" There can be only reason. The infant in the womb is a human being. If the infant in the womb is not a human person, there is no reason on earth to object to aborting it. If, then, you are "personally opposed," you must think that unborn is a human person. In the face of that conviction and in the knowledge that over a million human persons are slaughtered each year, you can only come up with a lame unwillingness to "impose your view"?

Unfortunately, the political scene in the country is becoming a vast patchwork of closed ideologies. Instead of submitting specific issues to tests of reason and compassion, people tend to accept a given "party line" its entirety. Why is it not possible, for example, to be for social welfare, peace and the environment and against abortion? For prenatal life and for the authentic liberation of women?

Here it is appropriate to pause for a word to Catholics. Why do some of us feel that if we are opposed to abortion, we must also espouse every extreme right-wing idea that comes along? And why do some of us work hard for peace, justice and liberation but strangely silent when the topic of abortion arises? Is it so important that our "liberal" or "conservative" friends find our ideological credentials without blemish? Can we not judge issues on their own merits without yielding our minds and hearts to some party line?

F. Media and Entertainment

On the topic of abortion, the media of social communication in our society have clearly chosen their stance. By and large, dramatists, reporters, editors, talk-show hosts and even comedians are solidly in the "prochoice" camp. This has several unfortunate results.

First of all, those who question present abortion policy find it nearly impossible to get their message effectively before the public or have it reported objectively. The editorial policy of most newspapers supports abortion. Pundits and opinion-makers rarely question the assumption that our present policies are good for society as a whole. But the matter goes far beyond editorials and opinion columns. A recent study conducted by journalists themselves concluded that, by and large the news media are indeed biased in their reporting on the abortion issue. Supposedly objective reports of meetings, debates and demonstrations are frequently slanted toward the "pro-choice" side. Even the vocabulary of journalists reveals this bias. Those who favor present abortion policies are usually called "pro-choice" while there is a consistent refusal to call their opponents "pro- life." Admittedly, using the terms "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" would indicate the opposite bias, but fairness would dictate that both groups be called by the name they themselves use. This may seem a small matter but, since the terms themselves embody an argument, it is discriminatory to accept the one and not the other. Both sides are clearly "for" one thing and "against" another and wish to be known for the positive aspects of their respective positions.

The situation is similar in the fields of drama and entertainment. Casual remarks or entire dramas may center on the anguish of pregnant women and the "injustice" of denying them the opportunity to escape their suffering through abortion. How often do we see on TV or in films a courageous choice made on behalf of the life of the preborn? How often is the physical and psychological damage of abortion honestly portrayed?

That whole wider complex of attitudes and tendencies described above is also supported and reinforced by the powerful entertainment industry of our nation. Through films, TV shows, commercials and popular songs, we are subjected to a constant barrage of propaganda which glorifies materialism and narcissism. Sex is a commodity used to help sell other commodities. Casual sex without commitment is made the norm and held up for admiration.

Many of the same people who profit from this industry then adopt a self-righteous pose and agitate for contraception and abortion as solutions to the problem of teen-age pregnancy which they themselves help foster.

All attempts to redress this situation are hamstrung by the nearly fanatical American devotion to freedom of expression. The sacredness of that concept and its necessity for a free and democratic society are undeniable. But when will we begin to seek ways to preserve that freedom and at the same time demand some social accountability from those relatively small groups which control nearly all the available means of mass communication?

Recent news stories reveal the contradictions in which we are trapped by our notions of free expression. Detailed and intricate laws ensure that not a single penny of the public treasury is used to promote religion in any way. Children in religious schools must move to "safe" public rooms for remedial reading. Only Santas and reindeer are permitted on public-school bulletin boards during "winter holidays." Yet if someone wishes to degrade human sexuality or ridicule religion and blaspheme its most sacred symbols, not only may he do so in the name of free artistic expression, he may receive a government grant to assist him. Thus, through their taxes, the very people whose most cherished beliefs he assaults are obliged to pay him to do it. Oppose this and you are denounced as favoring censorship. Perhaps we should claim that religion is only a form of artistic expression (many atheists would agree) and ask for government grants to support catechism classes!

In the face of all this, the effort to teach and promote a way of living which will be respectful of human life in all its aspects is a monumental struggle. Individuals, groups and especially churches which are engaged in that struggle are met with the fiercest resistance while their efforts are vilified and condemned. Editorials and opinion columns make sure that Americans maintain their historic fear of the power of the Church while they are lulled into complacency by the very powers which actually control their minds and hearts.

V. The Need for Moral Education

The topic of education might well have been placed within the preceding section on dangerous tendencies and attitudes. That our present educational system is failing in many ways is well known. That it particularly falls short in presenting values which might counterbalance the growing individualism and materialism of our society is also apparent. Nevertheless, these failures are not the focus here. It is important instead to reflect upon the potential of education for helping us find solutions to our many social ills.

A. Teaching Values

Questions arise about the very nature and possibility of moral education. Can we really teach moral values? How is this to be done? Whose values? How is moral education distinguished from indoctrination? Volumes have been written on such subjects. There is here no intent to present a complete theory of moral education or to endorse specific methodologies. These are matters for concerned experts. However, a few straightforward observations are in order.

It is obviously possible to teach moral values since they are in fact taught. Children are not born with such values as honesty, self-control, industry and the like. The first and best teachers of values are, of course, parents. From this it seems obvious that real-life situations, particularly in the home, provide the best environment for moral education. It is also obvious that the best teaching method is that of modeling or example. To some extent and in various ways other agencies can and do teach moral values: church, school, peers, the communications media. In fact, at certain times in a child's life, such outside agencies exercise greater influence than parents. Here too, the power of example in the midst of actual life is the most effective teacher.

These observations, brief as they are, lead directly to the realization that if society is to change and children are to be taught the value of life in all its aspects, children themselves cannot be the sole targets of such education. The educators must themselves be educated.

B. Whose Values?

Whose values are to be taught? Do we really know what's right and what's wrong in the midst of the confusing babble of contrary opinion nourished by our culture? First of all, this appeal to universal relativism is frequently an escape from responsibility. Yes, there are different sets of values in our society. Such differences are the basis of the disagreements detailed above at considerable length. Still, there is broad agreement on the fundamental values necessary for a good and productive life. The problem is that not even these are being effectively taught today.

What values, then, are to be emphasized? Precisely those which will effectively counter the dangerous and anti-social attitudes already described. Social responsibility and the common good over individualism and narcissism. Personal fulfillment through relationships of love and friendship rather than through consumerism and the quest for power. Commitment and devotion over transient relationships which make objects of other persons. Sex as the expression of committed love over sex as commodity or casual recreation.

For example, is it really impossible to teach the value of chastity? Many today, of course, laugh at the very notion. We are told that young people cannot be chaste. Worse by far, they themselves are told that they cannot be chaste! Contraception and abortion are put forth as the only "realistic" assistance in learning how to be responsible sexual beings. How hopeless we are as teachers of moral value! All we can do is talk about "safe sex" and pass out pills and condoms. It is likely that we adults have grown cynical with age and refuse to recognize the idealism and potential of youth when challenged in the name of authentic human values. By way of curious contrast, we are now engaged in a massive drug-education program which focuses not on "safe addiction" but on avoiding that condition in the first place. Why do we assume that our youth can say "no" to drugs but not to sexual intercourse? Do we even try to teach anything other than the mindless sexual behavior they see in films and on TV?

Similar soul-searching must take place with regard to education in all those values which support human life. Nor should we shrink from the task for fear of being accused of "indoctrination." The egregious failure of the once popular "values clarification" process should be a salutary lesson for us. The idea was to present all alternatives and leave the young to make their own choices. There was unjustified optimism that they would naturally make the "right" choices or else the frank assertion that there are no right or wrong choices. When it comes to basic human values, this approach simply will not do. There is nothing wrong with presenting alternatives while clearly pointing out those which favor human life and growth and those which do not. It is all too obvious that while teachers and parents were tip-toeing around the issues, "clarifying" values and avoiding "indoctrination," the producers of films, songs and TV shows had no such scruples. In the end, it is not a question of indoctrinating or not indoctrinating. It is only a question of who will do it.

C. Who Teaches, Who Learns?

The first recipients of a more effective moral education must be the members of those very organizations and churches which claim to be pro- life. It can hardly be said that the citizens are free of the excessive individualism, consumerism and irresponsibility so increasingly characteristic of the rest of our society. Very much to the point here is the sad fact that the abortion rate among Catholics is at least as high as it is in the general population. It is imperative that teachers, preachers and parents begin to take a resolute stand against all those attitudes which militate against human life and for all those authentic human values which are so much in danger within the ranks of our own membership. Only when we are seen to be making an honest effort to live up to our own values can we credibly address the moral education of the rest of our society.

When we do attempt to help the larger society establish its pro-life values on a firmer basis, we must still recall that the best method for moral education is example. We must at every opportunity speak out on behalf of human life but we must see to it that our own behavior matches our words. Then let our words flow from calm conviction and from love for our opponents as well as for human beings at all stages of growth.

Armed only with the courage of our convictions, we must confront our nation wit the example of a people dedicated to the promotion of authentic human values while with our minds and voices we continue to follow the advice given to Timothy long ago: "Be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching." (2 Tim. 4:2)

VI. Conclusion: An Appeal

Our struggle against the practice of abortion as such must continue, but that is not nearly enough. If abortion policy expresses and reinforces a whole complex of perilous social trends, we must take a resolute stand against them all. It will not do for Christians to oppose this or that aspect of a sick society while endorsing and lending their supports to others.

Broad tendencies require broad remedies. We are called today to nothing less than a counter-cultural revolution. We need individuals and large groups of Christians who will speak out and, above all, live out a consistent ethic opposed to all destructive social tendencies. We must join together to discuss these issues and to support one another in the construction of thoroughly pro-life ways of thinking and behaving. Our very lifestyle must become a radical rejection of self-centeredness, hypocrisy and consumerism.

Historians have noted that the Christian Church seems to flourish in times of persecution, when its members draw together in solidarity against implacable foes. By contrast, when the Church is unopposed or even wielding political power, zeal and devotion grow cold. The present and future struggle for a truly human society promises to be a campaign worthy of our greatest efforts. If we can be faithful to life in the midst of this struggle, history may well rate these times among the Church's finest hours.

A final word to my fellow Catholics. Or ancestors were able to develop and pass on their faith because our country provided them freedom of religion. Now that we have achieved a mature and important status in American society, is it not time to repay the debt? Our gift of gratitude might well be the help we can give in rekindling the moral and spiritual values under which this republic can continue to flourish.

God save the United States of America.

Other Teachings of the Magisterium on Abortion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pastoral Letter of Archbishop Daniel Kucera, OSB: Abortion and the Unraveling of American Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Abortion and the Unraveling of American Society" Archbishop Daniel W. Kucera, O.S.BArchbishop of Dubuque CONTENTS II. Why Abortion Is Wrong III. Other Views Considered IV. Social Effects of Abortion Policy V. The Need for Moral Education VI. Conclusion: An Appeal I.

# data[].attributes.body
This article doesn't really have a lot of bias in it, its more factual than opinionated. I like how it describes how women respond emotionally to abortion and what circumstances make these responses more prone to happen. Many women who undergo an abortion may experience serious depression following the abortion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The emotional side effects many women experience after an abortion

Abortion can emotionally affect each woman differently. Some women report a sense of relief after having an abortion. The reasons for relief also vary from woman to woman.

Emotional and psychological effects following abortion are more common than physical side effects and can range from mild regret to more serious complications such as depression. It is important to discuss these risks with a trained professional who can address your questions and concerns. The emotional side effects of having an abortion are just as real as physical side effects.

For information about abortion you may call the APA toll-free helpline at 1-800-672-2296, or search locally by zip code below.

One important factor related to the vulnerability of negative emotional or psychological effects has to do with your belief about the baby inside of you. Those who believe it is not a baby until it is born have less of a chance of experiencing negative emotional consequences. However, those who believe it is a baby are more likely to experience negative emotional side effects.

What are the types of potential emotional and psychological sides effects following an abortion?

The following is a list of potential emotional and psychological risks of having an abortion. The intensity or duration of these effects will vary from one person to another.
Potential side effects include:

Regret

Anger

Guilt

Shame

Sense of loneliness or isolation

Loss of self confidence

Insomnia or nightmares

Relationship issues

Suicidal thoughts and feelings

Eating disorders

Depression

Anxiety

Who's more prone to experience emotional side effects?

It is possible for anyone to experience an unexpected emotional or psychological side effect following an abortion. Women commonly report that the abortion procedure affected them more than they expected. However, some individuals are more susceptible to experiencing some type of emotional or psychological struggle.
Women with a higher probability of having a negative emotional or psychological side effect include:

Individuals with previous emotional or psychological concerns

Individuals who have been coerced, forced or persuaded to get an abortion

Individuals with religious beliefs that conflict with abortion

Individuals with moral or ethical views that conflict with abortion

Individuals who obtain an abortion in the later stages of pregnancy

Individuals without support from significant others or their partner

Women obtaining an abortion for genetic or fetal abnormalities

Recommendations for someone considering an abortion

Get Help - Probably the most important thing you can do when facing an unplanned pregnancy is to communicate with trained professionals who can answer your questions and discuss your individual circumstances with you.

Avoid Isolation - If you are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy, you might have the tendency to withdraw from others to keep the matter a secret and/or to face the issue alone. Although it can be difficult, try to stay connected with family and friends who can support you. Too much isolation under these circumstances can lead to depression.

Evaluate Your Circumstances - See the situations listed previously regarding individuals who are more likely to experience one or more side effects. Discuss your situation with someone who can help you give you perspective and understanding.

Avoid Pressure - Avoid people who are pressuring you you to do what they think is best. Whether you opt to parent, choose adoption, or have an abortion, you are the one who is going to have to live with your choice.

Talk to Others - See if you can find someone who has gone through an unplanned pregnancy or had an abortion to find out what it was like for them.

Compiled using information from the following sources:

1. Adler, Nancy, et al. (2003). "Abortion Among Adolescents." American Psychologist, 59(3), 211-7. Adler, Nancy. (1989) University of California at San Francisco, Statement on Behalf of the American Psychological Association Before the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Governmental Operations, U.S. House of Representatives: 130-140.

2. Adler, Nancy., et al (1990). "Psychological Responses after Abortion." Science, 248(4951), 41-4.

3. Dagg, Paul. (1991) "The Psychological Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion - Denied and Completed." American Journal of Psychiatry, 148(5), 578-85.

4. Gilchrist, A., et al. (1995). "Termination of Pregnancy and Psychiatric Morbidity." British Journal of Psychiatry, 167(2), 243-8.

5. Kishida, Yakuko. (2001). "Anxiety in Japanese Women After Elective Abortion." Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 30, 490-5.

6. Major, Brenda, et al. (1992). "Male Partners' Appraisals of Undesired Pregnancy and Abortion." Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(9), 777-84.

7. Russo, Nancy & Denious, Jean. (2001) "Violence in the Lives of Women Having Abortions: Implications for Practice and Public Policy." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(2), 142-50.

8. Zabin, Laurie, et al. (1989). "When Urban Adolescents Chose Abortion: Effects on Education, Psychological Status, and Subsequent Pregnancy" Family Planning Perspectives, 21(6), 248-55.

9. Zolese, G. & Blacker, C. (1992). "The Psychological Complications of Therapeutic Abortion." British Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 742-9.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emotional Side Effects After an Abortion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abortion can emotionally affect each woman differently. Some women report a sense of relief after having an abortion. The reasons for relief also vary from woman to woman. Emotional and psychological effects following abortion are more common than physical side effects and can range from mild regret to more serious complications such as depression.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't believe that any abortion is a necessity, I know women who have put their lives at risk for a chance to give birth to a child. its really the person whether they are self- centered or not. if I was pregnant with a child and my life was potentially at risk I would take that chance because no matter what im pro-life and that means im protecting that unborn child no matter what. Also rape victims have the option of adoption like every other mother, I know the whole situation is a little traumatic but they are still carrying a baby inside them that deserves a life no matter who the father is.

# data[].attributes.body
I found your articles really interesting and eye opening. I learned a lot of information from your articles that I didn't find in mine which is always helpful. My one criticism is that you should have put more imformation about the bias of the articles, even quote some of it.

# data[].attributes.body
I liked this article simply because it is filled with facts about my topic and little opinion and bias.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Though public opinion on abortion actually reflects a very nuanced debate, with opinions based around factors like the pregnancy's term and the reason for termination, there are really only two positions debated in the media: ardently for the unrestricted availability of abortion regardless of motive, or ardently against abortion under any circumstances - and how dare anyone suggest otherwise. And since these positions tend to cleave along party lines, a stance on abortion that shows a political affinity different than the typical Left-Right divide is almost untenable, at least if one hopes to be depicted honestly and consistently by the media.

So I confess: I am a pro-life leftist.

I consider my position to be a specific set of political motives and goals that don't fully align with either side of America's abortion debate. Since the Left generally objects to the idea that ending the life of a fetus isn't a protected right, and the Right disfavors any insistence that a culture of life has broader implications, I'm bereft of a political home on this issue.

I oppose abortion because I believe it is contrary to Christian ethics. I should preempt this point by noting that it is typical of Christian ethical thought that multiple wrongs can be stacked atop one another. Such is the case, quite generally, on this issue: Abortions are as much the result of a culture inhospitable to life as they are to the weak sources of support that arise out of that culture and the decisions of individual mothers.

Even if it is challenging to settle the question of when, exactly, "life" begins, it is clear that abortion negates whatever life there is. Moreover, the significant possibility that the fetus is alive is enough under most Christian ethical formulations to favor avoiding any action that might end such a life, much in the way that a Christian would be warned against firing a gun into a box if it was possible that someone might be inside it. Human life is significant enough, in other words, to allow wide latitude for.

That latter point is what necessitates the leftist part of my position.

While pro-lifers rally around a culture of life, the sum total of such a culture seems to be for them one in which abortion is vigorously prosecuted and everyone has knockoff, Livestrong-esque wristbands decrying the evils of terminating pregnancies. It's not a convincing picture. While their arguments are in the right spirit, the tactics of the movement vary from the extreme and directly antithetical to a culture of life, such as the murder of abortion providers, to the useless and cruel, such as the harassment of women seeking abortions at clinics, to the performative and weak, such as standing around with tape on their mouths. Very little of the imaginative power of organizations such as Bound4Life and LiveAction goes to answering that echoing Christian ethical question: What then should we do? It's not enough to say what we should not do.

The pro-life leftist position maintains that human life is so significant, so inherently valuable, so irreplaceable that it should be the central subject of political concern. This view requires, therefore, that since we care enough about the outcome of pregnancy to insist against abortion, then we must continue to care about the outcome when abortion is no longer a legal option. To me, this requires a culture agreeing to put its money where its mouth is - that is, to provide robust support programs that render feasible the entire process of childbearing and childbirth, from pregnancy to child care to the total span of family life. Programs that immediately come to mind include universal health care, which would obviate the incredible expenses of pregnancy, often costing in the thousands of dollars out of pocket; government-supported parental leave and policies protecting the employment of mothers; and a no-strings-attached child allowance.

A 2013 study featured in the journal BMC Women's Health found that financial reasons were the primary motive for 40 percent of women who sought abortions. In fact, financial concerns were the "most frequently mentioned theme" in women's explanations of why they needed an abortion. Other concerns included a lack of insurance, a lack of adequate housing, and a lack of stable living conditions. The study's authors note that for women seeking abortion, the decision is rarely simple; most women expressed multiple reasons that in culmination led them to believe they could not become mothers, and financial reasons were frequently at the core of those stacked concerns.

What people who are genuinely interested in reducing abortion need to understand is that all of these factors are mutable. As a society, we are capable of seriously impacting the child poverty rate with transfer programs, as Matt Bruenig (full disclosure: he's my fiancé) has demonstrated at Demos by illustrating how state-funded support programs account for different countries' child poverty rates. As Bruenig shows, there is nothing especially mysterious about Finland, Sweden, or Norway that allows them to have such low child poverty rates - they merely choose, politically, to funnel their resources into preventing economic stress on parents and children. Accordingly, it's frequently the case that countries similar to the U.S. but with more robust social programs have lower rates of abortion: There are about 20 abortions per 1,000 women in the U.S., 7.8 per 1,000 in Germany, 14.3 in Denmark, and 11.1 in Finland. The needle, it appears, can be nudged.

In my view, a genuine pro-life political position takes its commitment to human life seriously, and is therefore willing to commit to supporting the lives of mothers and children rather than simply their births. I do not believe harsh punishment is the way to address the challenges facing mothers and infants that tragically conclude, at times, in abortion. Yet penalty seems to be the one way those operating under the "pro-life" banner feel comfortable expressing their commitment to life, which is why I find the usual right-wing anti-abortion approach underwhelming and incomplete. Compassion isn't cheap, and it's defined by its longevity: If we are to take seriously a cultural commitment to life, which I believe we should, then we'll conduct ourselves with mercy and sensitivity to the difficulties that bring women to choose abortion, and will commit ourselves to concrete political change aimed at reducing those struggles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Though public opinion on abortion actually reflects a very nuanced debate, with opinions based around factors like the pregnancy's term and the reason for termination, there are really only two positions debated in the media: ardently for the unrestricted availability of abortion regardless of motive, or ardently against abortion under any circumstances - and how dare anyone suggest otherwise.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is very opinionated but I side with most of the statements. Also the article talks about how only 1% of abortions account for rape and abuse victims, this is very eyeopening if only we could save the other 99% of abortions from happening.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HARD-LINE conservatives have gone to new extremes lately in opposing abortion. Last week, Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party-backed Republican Senate candidate in Indiana, declared during a debate that he was against abortion even in the event of rape because after much thought he "came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." That came on the heels of the Tea Party-backed Republican Representative Joe Walsh of Illinois saying after a recent debate that he opposed abortion even in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, because "with modern technology and science, you can't find one instance" in which a woman would not survive without an abortion. "Health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime, for any reason," Walsh said. That came in the wake of the Senate hopeful in Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, remarking that pregnancy as a result of "legitimate rape" is rare because "the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down."

These were not slips of the tongue. These are the authentic voices of an ever-more-assertive far-right Republican base that is intent on using uncompromising positions on abortion to not only unseat more centrist Republicans - Mourdock defeated the moderate Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana in the primary - but to overturn the mainstream consensus in America on this issue. That consensus says that those who choose to oppose abortion in their own lives for reasons of faith or philosophy should be respected, but those women who want to make a different personal choice over what happens with their own bodies should be respected, and have the legal protection to do so, as well.

But judging from the unscientific - borderline crazy - statements opposing abortion that we're hearing lately, there is reason to believe that this delicate balance could be threatened if Mitt Romney and Representative Paul Ryan, and their even more extreme allies, get elected. So to those who want to protect a woman's right to control what happens with her own body, let me offer just one piece of advice: to name something is to own it. If you can name an issue, you can own the issue. And we must stop letting Republicans name themselves "pro-life" and Democrats as "pro-choice." It is a huge distortion.

In my world, you don't get to call yourself "pro-life" and be against common-sense gun control - like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don't get to call yourself "pro-life" and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don't get to call yourself "pro-life" and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a "pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative." I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as "pro-life."

"Pro-life" can mean only one thing: "respect for the sanctity of life." And there is no way that respect for the sanctity of life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman's body, no matter how that egg got fertilized, but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon. I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman's body can distinguish a "legitimate" rape, but then declares - when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet - that global warming is just a hoax.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HARD-LINE conservatives have gone to new extremes lately in opposing abortion. Last week, Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party-backed Republican Senate candidate in Indiana, declared during a debate that he was against abortion even in the event of rape because after much thought he "came to realize that life is that gift from God.

# data[].attributes.body
who: Mary Wollstonecraft

what: Feminist movement

where: England

when: Started in 1792

why: to support women's rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Not all feminists support abortion. Properly defined, feminism is a philosophy that embraces basic rights for all human beings without exception-without regard to race, religion, sex, size, age, location, disability or parentage. Feminism rejects the use of force to dominate, control or destroy anyone.

The organization Feminists for Life continues a 200-year-old tradition begun by Mary Wollstonecraft in England in 1792. Decrying the sexual exploitation of women in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft also condemned those who would "either destroy the embryo in the womb or cast it off when born," saying: "Nature in everything deserves respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity."

Mary Wollstonecraft died from complications following the birth of her second baby girl, who was named Mary in her honor. Like her mother, the younger Mary would become a great writer, producing one of the greatest novels ever to address the dangers of violating nature- Frankenstein, by Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin Shelley.

Fifty years after Mary Wollstonecraft's book was published, Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton traveled to England to fight for the abolition of slavery. Barred from speaking at the 1842 World Anti-Slavery Convention simply because they were women, Mott and Stanton determined to hold a convention advancing the rights of women.

At that time, American women could not vote or hold property. They could not control their own money, sit on a jury or even testify on their own behalf. Women's rights to assemble, speak freely, attend college and maintain child custody after divorce or spousal death were severely limited. Marital rape went unacknowledged. The early American feminists-facing conditions similar to those in developing countries today-were strongly opposed to abortion; despite their own struggles, they believed in the worth of all human lives.

Abortion was common in the 1800s. Sarah Norton, who with Susan B. Anthony successfully argued for women's admission to Cornell University, wrote in 1870:

Child murderers practice their profession without let or hindrance, and open infant butcheries unquestioned.... Perhaps there will come a day when...an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood...and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with.

In 1868 Eleanor Kirk, a novelist turned activist, linked the need for women's rights with the need to protect the unborn. When a woman told her that suffrage was unnecessary because she and her husband were "one," Kirk asked what would become of her babies if her husband ceased to provide for them:

What will become of the babies-did you ask-and you? Can you not see that the idea is to educate women that they may be self-reliant, self-sustaining, self-respected? The wheel is a big one, and needs a strong push, and a push all together, giving to it an impulse that will keep it constantly revolving, and the first revolution must be Female Suffrage.

Without known exception, the early feminists condemned abortion in no uncertain terms. In the radical feminist newspaper The Revolution, the founder, Susan B. Anthony, and the co-editor, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, refused to publish advertisements for "Foeticides and Infanticides." Stanton, who in 1848 organized the first women's convention in Seneca Falls, N.Y., classified abortion as a form of "infanticide" and, referring to the "murder of children, either before or after birth," said, "We believe the cause of all these abuses lies in the degradation of women."

Early feminists argued that women who had abortions were responsible for their actions but that they resorted to abortion primarily because, within families and throughout society, they lacked autonomy, financial resources and emotional support. A passage in Susan B. Anthony's newspaper states:

Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!

Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for president (in 1872), concurred. In her own newspaper, Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly, Woodhull wrote: "The rights of children, then, as individuals, begin while they yet remain the foetus." Woodhull and her sister, Tennessee Claflin, declared, "Pregnancy is not a disease, but a beautiful office of nature."

Clearly, we have a wealth of evidence contradicting the lie that feminists must support abortion. Some who begrudgingly admit the early American feminists were anti-abortion have suggested that their stance arose from Victorian attitudes about sex. That is not true either. Elizabeth Cady Stanton shocked Victorian society by parading around in public visibly pregnant. She raised a flag to celebrate the birth of her son. Stanton celebrated womanhood. She was in-your-face about her ability to have children.

But like today's pro-life feminists, our feminist foremothers also recognized that women need not bear children to share in the celebration of womanhood. Susan B. Anthony was once complimented by a man who said that she "ought to have been a wife and mother." Anthony replied:

Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them.

In her later years, Anthony passed on the responsibility for women's rights to a new generation, just as we must prepare to do. At the turn of the century, one young woman, Alice Paul, assumed leadership. Paul fought tirelessly for passage of the 19th Amendment, which in 1920 finally guaranteed to American women the right to vote.

The Betrayal of Modern Women

Much later in life, Alice Paul was asked by a friend what she thought of linking abortion to women's rights. The author of the original Equal Rights Amendment called abortion "the ultimate exploitation of women." Yet what earlier feminists called a "disgusting and degrading crime" was, in the 1970s, lauded as the most fundamental right, without which all other rights are meaningless. So how did the second wave feminist movement come to embrace abortion?

Two of the male founders of the National Association to Repeal Abortion Laws were among the first to portray abortion as a "right" rather than an act of violence. Larry Lader promoted abortion as population control. His NARAL cofounder, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, saw a botched abortion in Chicago and reasoned that "legal" would mean "safer." Nathanson later became pro-life. But in the early 1970s, the men traveled the country advocating the repeal of what they believed to be antiquated abortion laws. After failing to convince legislators that anti-abortion laws were "archaic," Lader saw an opportunity. According to Nathanson, Lader approached leaders of the women's movement. He reasoned that if a woman wanted to be educated like a man, hired like a man and promoted like a man, women should not expect their employers to accommodate pregnancy.

Forty-two years after the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, many within the pro-life movement focus on the undeniable humanity of each unborn child, clearly visible through the millions of sonograms obtained by proud parents each year. But it is also a good time to evaluate the impact that Roe v. Wade attorney Sarah Weddington's pro-abortion arguments have had on women.

In 1973, Weddington exposed the discrimination and other injustices faced by pregnant women who are poor or in the workplace or school. But she did not demand that these injustices be remedied. Instead, she demanded for women the "right" to submit to these injustices by destroying their pregnancies. Weddington repeatedly said that women need "relief" from pregnancy, instead of arguing that women need relief from these injustices.

What if Weddington had used her legal acumen to challenge the system and address women's needs? Women are not suddenly stupid when they become pregnant. They can still read, write and think. But by accepting pregnancy discrimination in school and in the workplace, by accepting the widespread lack of support for pregnant women and parents-especially among the poor-Weddington and the Supreme Court betrayed women and undermined the support women need and deserve.

The Failing Report Card

Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the United States. According to the Guttmacher Institute, their former research arm:

* Three out of four women who have abortions say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for a dependent.

* 69 percent are economically disadvantaged.

* 61 percent are already mothers.

* Women of color are disproportionately at risk of abortion.

* Half of all abortions are performed on women who have already had an abortion.

* 44 percent of all abortions are performed on college-age women.

All too often, the root causes underlying these statistics are shame and fear generated about pregnancy by the attitudes of parents, friends and the fathers of children. Fatherhood has been diminished. Children are disconnected from their fathers, who have rights as well as responsibilities. And millions of women have paid the price. Women, many impoverished because of the billions owed to mothers for child support, are struggling in school and the workplace without societal support. After all, when "it's her body, it's her choice," it's her problem.

For all these reasons and more, more than a million times a year in the United States, a woman lays her body down or swallows a bitter pill called "choice"-driven to abortion because of a lack of resources and support.

Abortion solves nothing. Almost four decades after Roe, we mourn the loss of 57 million American children that we will never meet. We will never know what they might have contributed to this world. But we must also remember the hundreds of women and teens who have lost their lives to legal but lethal abortion because they did not want to inconvenience us with their pregnancies.

We mourn with the parents of Holly Patterson, who died from sepsis after she took RU-486, and with the parents of Dawn Ravenell, the 13-year-old girl who never came home after she had an abortion without her parent's knowledge. We mourn with the husband of Karnamaya Mongar, a poor immigrant who died as a result of her abortion at the hands of the convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell. Where is the outrage from women's advocates?

Hard Cases, Exceptional Choices

Talking about abortion brings out raw emotions. Nothing is more divisive than talk about pregnancy and rape, and nothing challenges pro-life beliefs more than this heated issue. Just as we have challenged thinking about special-needs babies and their parents, we must help women who have conceived during rape and welcome children conceived in violence.

We must help people have the courage to look into the face of a child conceived during rape and say, "You didn't deserve the death penalty." The circumstances of one's conception do not determine a person's worth. These children should not be regarded as "exceptions." But their mothers should be recognized as "exceptional." And as advocates of life, peace and justice, we will never trade one form of violence for another.

Today we stand in solidarity with women coerced into abortion because they felt they had no choice. We stand with women who were vulnerable because they were young, or poor, or in schools or workplaces that would not accommodate their needs as mothers.

We stand in solidarity with women who have been betrayed by those they count on the most, with women who have underestimated their own strength, with women who have experienced abortion and are silent no more, with young men and women who mourn their missing siblings. We mourn with men who weren't given a choice or who contributed to an abortion that they now regret.

In all its forms, abortion has masked-rather than solved-the problems women face. Abortion is a failed experiment on women. Why celebrate failure?

Addressing Root Causes

For decades, abortion advocates have asked, "What about the woman?" And pro-lifers have answered, "What about the baby?" This does nothing to address the needs of women who are pregnant. We should start by addressing the needs of women-for family housing, child care, maternity coverage, for the ability to telecommute to school or work, to job-share, to make a living wage and to find practical resources.

As pro-life employers and educators, we must examine our own policies and practices in our own communities, workplaces, colleges and universities. With woman-centered problem solving, we can set the example for the nation and the world. We must ramp up efforts to systemically address the unmet needs of struggling parents, birthparents and victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Because 61 percent of abortions are performed on mothers who already have dependents, Feminists for Life is determined to help those facing tough economic times; FFL has published "Raising Kids on a Shoestring," a national directory filled with creative, frugal and free solutions for pregnant women, parents and advisors.

And Feminists for Life advocates unconditional support for women who lovingly place their babies into the arms of adoptive couples. We applaud birthmothers like the former FFL board chair Jessica O'Connor-Petts, who tells us that "adoption can be an empowering option for women."

We must focus our efforts on collegians who have never known a day without legal abortion. Forty-three percent of all abortions are performed on college-age women, women who will become our future leaders and educators in every field. For these reasons, Feminists for Life's flagship effort is our college outreach program.

In addition to teaching the rich, pro-life feminist history that we have uncovered, we have been moderating FFL Pregnancy Resource Forums at campuses across the country. The first such panel discussion was at Georgetown University in 1997. Administrators, community leaders and students came together in a nonconfrontational setting to identify available resources on and off campus and to set priorities for new policies, resources and ways to communicate nonviolent options.

Within two years, Georgetown University's board of trustees set aside endowed housing for parenting students. The Hoya Kids Learning Center was established. Pregnant and parenting students had access to health services and user-friendly information on the school's website. Students created volunteer babysitting services. A "safety net" team of university administrators organized to ensure that no pregnant women-including birthmothers and international students-fall through the cracks. And every year, Georgetown hosts a Pregnancy Resource Forum to take another look at ways they can improve.

The first Georgetown forum started with the story of a woman who had an abortion because she did not know where to go for help. At the 14th annual forum, babies played on the floor. Beaming mothers told us they have "everything [they] need." This past fall I moderated the 19th annual forum at Georgetown University. Because of our early efforts at Georgetown, Villanova and Notre Dame, this is the first year that babies born with the support of administrators are now likely entering college themselves.

Other colleges have also expanded their support for student parents. Pepperdine University created a task force to support pregnant women, adjusting policies to better suit student parents' needs and building family housing. A donor recently stepped forward to fund a housing scholarship. Abbot Placid Solari and the monks of Belmont Abbey donated land adjacent to Belmont Abbey for "A Room at the Inn," now called Mira-Via, so that women will not feel pressured to terminate either their pregnancies or their educations. Pregnant women and new mothers can now have their babies and continue with school.

Pro-life and pro-choice students came together at Wellesley College to hold a rummage sale benefitting a pregnant student who lost her financial aid for housing. The young woman had her baby and graduated. A University of Virginia student started a babysitting club. Berkeley Students for Life held bake sales to pay for diaper decks. Students for Life at St. Louis University started a scholarship fund for child care. There are many other examples like this as the ideas of Feminists for Life members and supporters go viral.

In 2010, FFL Pregnancy Resource Forums findings became the inspiration for federal grants to states through the Department of Health and Human Services' Pregnancy Assistance Fund. After the first 10 years of FFL's College Outreach Program, Planned Parenthood reported a 30 percent drop in abortions among college-educated women.

Women Deserve Better

Abortion betrays the basic feminist principles of nonviolence, nondiscrimination and justice for all. Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women-and that women have settled for less. Women deserve better.

Forty years after Sarah Weddington capitulated to inherently unfair practices against pregnant and parenting women, we say no to the status quo. We refuse to choose between women and children.

More than a century ago, the same women who fought for women's rights and for the rights of slaves to be free also fought to protect women and children from abortion. We continue their fight in the spirit of Mattie Brinkerhoff, who wrote in 1869 in The Revolution:

When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we can safely assume that there is something wrong in society-so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged.

Feminism was born of abolition. All people are equal. Not all choices are equal. We envision a better day, a day when womanhood is celebrated, mothers are supported, fatherhood is honored and every child is cherished.

If you refuse to choose between women and children, if you work to systematically eliminate the root causes that drive women to abortion, then you already follow in the footsteps of Susan B. Anthony and our other feminist foremothers, whether you call yourself a feminist or not.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Feminist Case Against Abortion: the pro-life roots of the women's movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not all feminists support abortion. Properly defined, feminism is a philosophy that embraces basic rights for all human beings without exception-without regard to race, religion, sex, size, age, location, disability or parentage. Feminism rejects the use of force to dominate, control or destroy anyone.