Guest / Limited Access /

Forty years after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Roe v. Wade decision, a leading pro-life legal expert believes the decision has never been more vulnerable to being overturned.

In his new book, Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade, ...

Read More

Displaying 1–20 of 30 comments.

1 2 next page   Show All

audrey ruth

February 12, 2014  3:27am

("Jane Roe" Norma McCorvey, continues): I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception'. It wasn't about 'missed periods'. It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion; at any point; was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

February 12, 2014  3:26am

"Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) speaking: I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth; that's a baby!

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

February 12, 2014  3:15am

So, Monty, I take it you're okay with killing the little babies. Your dire scenario is way over the top - the nation did not experience those things BEFORE Roe v. Wade. A lot of people don't know it was enacted on the basis of a lie, although "Jane Roe", Norma McCorvey, has tried to get that message out (she's written several books; I highly recommend her autobiography, Won By Love.) Seems to me that fact alone is reason to give it a loooong look and repeal it.

Report Abuse

Monty Heying

February 09, 2014  10:21pm

If Roe v Wade were repealed the annual cost to the taxpayer is $10 billion*. And that's not counting the cost of building the orphanages it will take to house the unwanted children that were formerly unwanted pregnancies. The 25.2 million population increase during the first 18 years post repeal of Roe v Wade will need a roof over their heads, food, clothing, education. Foster Care is already overloaded. The cost to construct the 360,000 orphanages it will take to house these 25.2 million new parentless children is $453 billion ($1.3 million per orphange at the occupancy rate of 70 kids each.) This brings the total tab for the first 18 years to a staggering $463 billion. In highly populated countries where abortion is illegal or strictly controlled, hoardes of abandoned kids roam the streets begging, stealing, prostituting, drug dealing. Is this what we want for America? Unwanted pregnancies become unwanted children. You can't legislate the desire to have a child, so these unfortuna

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

February 02, 2014  11:28pm

Pilgrim, you are sadly misinformed. Even if your first statement were accurate, that means nothing in itself. Appealing to numbers is not a rational way to determine right and wrong. The majority can be wrong - nothing unusual there. EVERY nation's laws are based on someone's ideology - the only question is, whose? Even humanism (deification of man) was defined as a religion by the authors of the original Humanist Manifesto, years ago. Your generalizations about the Pro-Life movement are similarly over the top, very skewed. As one who has worked in the trenches, volunteering in crisis pregnancy refuge clinics for several decades, I see firsthand each week how far off the mark you are. People of both genders, all ages. and every walk of life are passionate about telling the truth about the little babies who are NOT 'just part of their mom's body'. They are separate human beings with their own bodies, gender, DNA, fingerprints, personality, etc. Read UnPlanned, by Abby Johnson.

Report Abuse

Pilgrim Progress

January 25, 2014  6:29pm

No, freedom of choice will not be diminished, no matter how much it distresses us. The fact is, the VAST Majority of American Women, and women in the Modern World, support Choice, even if they would never have an abortion themselves. Abortion is solely a woman's personal business, between herself and her Doctor. We do not make our Laws based on Religious Precepts, or it would be illegal for women do have ANY Freedom. Here's how Our Constitution and Religious Liberty works; if you think abortion is a sin, immoral, or murder, don't have one. But don't impose that on anyone else. There is a reason why the vast majority of the Anti-Choice movement are post-menopausal, Angry, Old, White Men with Control Issues. Women have already defeated Anti-Choice laws and Candidates, and demonstrated that they support Choice for Women. It is time to stop lying and pretending that it is not true.

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

January 21, 2014  10:34pm

Amen, Nancy and Rick! :) I have personally known MANY Americans who would LOVE to adopt, but can't. They are told that no babies are available. ??? Another issue is this: IF it were as inexpensive to adopt as it is to obtain abortion on demand, OR if it were as expensive to abort as it is to adopt, then there would be a level playing field, so to speak. A lot of people would love to adopt, but simply cannot afford to do so.

Report Abuse

Rick Dalbey

January 20, 2014  5:18pm

Loren, that is a cynical argument. What did America do before we came up with the baby disposal industry in 1973? We were more careful about sex because there were consequences. We developed a conscience when the baby was born and maternal and paternal instincts kicked in. Fathers were on the line financially to provide support which also meant they held jobs. It made one think about getting a woman pregnant instead of viewing it as an act of pleasure that had no consequences. There will always be those who are totally irresponsible and immoral. And there may always be some illegal abortions. But that is no reason to kill babies. When we abolished slavery did we wring our hands and fret about what we were going to do with all those freed slaves? The first step in reclaiming our conscience is to be moral. Stop killing babies. What if we had said we can't free the slaves because where would they all go? This is the right thing to do. And it may even drive positive social changes.

Report Abuse

Loren Baird

January 20, 2014  4:07pm

An important aspect of this debate is what to do with the number of children who are conceived and born each year who are not wanted. 1 million babies is a lot! Are Christians ready to handle the adoption of that many people a year? Are we prepared for education needed about the services available? Are we ready to create a new type of orphanage? Are we able to do it without the help of the government? Don't get me wrong, I am completely for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and believe that life begins at conception. That being said, not everyone who believes that will be ready to adopt. And just because abortion would be illegal, won't stop those who viewed it as birth control from continuing to get pregnant.

Report Abuse

James Cowles

January 19, 2014  5:00pm

@ Nancy Danielson ... "Not to mention that when the only definition the Court was able to come up with for "person" was 'naturalized citizen'" "Person" is a legal construct which is NOT NECESSARILY synonymous with "human". E.g., legally, corporations are "persons". But corporations are not "human", Mitt Romney notwithstanding. I doubt that anyone will be inviting Monsanto -- as a corporation -- over for beer, skittles, and the Super Bowl. Employees thereof, maybe, but not the corporation itself. So the sticking point is defining "human" IN A RELIGION-NEUTRAL MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. Problem is that the only definitions for "human" are at present formulated in purely religious terms. So any legal definition of "human" would amount to writing religious doctrine into civil law, which would be facially inconsistent with the "establishment" clause of the 1st Amend that forbids favoritism as to religion.

Report Abuse

Nancy Danielson

January 18, 2014  12:04pm

Not to mention that when the only definition the Court was able to come up with for "person" was "naturalized citizen" (Justice Blackmun during Oral Arguments), all the Judges should have recused themselves for failing to recognize the self-evident truth; a human person can only conceive a human person, a son or daughter of a human person can only be a human person.

Report Abuse

Sally Rowan

January 18, 2014  10:50am

The article mentions the increased chance of pre-term births following abortion. Planned Parenthood confirms the increase not only of premature birth, but miscarriage following abortion: http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthood-study-abortion-u ps-miscarriage-rate/ The statistics are from Shanghai, so I'm sure they're completely irrelevant to the US.....

Report Abuse

Rick Dalbey

January 16, 2014  3:33pm

Caleb, surely you can think of stupider ideas, you are just not thinking hard enough. Put your brain to it! However, defunding Planned Parenthood at least would definitely prevent 333,964 abortions in America a year. That was the number of babies killed at Planned Parenthood in 2011. What a holocaust! Plus, it would silence abortion's most vocal publicly financed advocate. Abortion is also racial genocide. Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population in the US, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to undergo an abortion. On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. As Margaret Sanger taught, abortion is a powerful way to eliminate the poor underclass, the handicapped, the defective, the racial minorities.

Report Abuse

Caleb Anderson

January 16, 2014  1:44pm

Defunding Planned Parenthood is about the stupidest idea I can think of for preventing abortions.

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

January 15, 2014  11:08pm

Stanley, as a woman who has carried and borne children, please allow me to clear up a widely-believed misconception. I realize it is commonly spoken and believed. A baby is actually not part of a woman's body - he or she just grows and develops in the mom's womb. A baby is a separate human being. He has his own fingerprints. She has her own blood type. He has his own DNA. She has her own personality. If they were just part of the woman's body, they'd all be female! I encourage you to read books by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, an atheist doctor who co-founded NARAL in the 1960s and committed 75,000 abortions. He said himself that NARAL spread all sorts of propaganda and myths even though they knew those things were not true. You can google his name and read his statements of what he learned via the development of ultrasound (NYC hospital commissioned him to head it up.) He was honest and admitted the truth of what he learned, then became an outspoken opponent of abortion.

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

January 15, 2014  11:06pm

Hi, Thomas. :) I've been involved with pro-Life groups for years and years, thanks to the Lord's leading me to them at the just right time. They were running Crisis Pregnancy Refuge Centers before I even knew there was such a thing. We are pro LIFE, not just pro-birth (which is not a bad thing, especially in contrast to the alternative.) We help not only teens and young women, but also older women (comparatively speaking) who are in dire circumstances and need help. We offer ultrasound so they can see what their babies look like at their particular stage of development. We have helped those who need work to find it; we have helped them find homes if needed; we have helped teens finish/continue their education; we have helped them with transportation, doctor appointments, and more. Churches and other org's help to provide maternity clothes, cribs, baby clothes, supplies, and more. Some of these women work with us now because they want to bless others as they've been blessed.

Report Abuse

stanley trent bemis

January 15, 2014  10:49pm

i have written previously to adress this issue,which i'm afraid your publication is takeing what i can only conceive as being a myoptic view.first of all,while it is true that there is a strong movement to undermine roe v wade there is no reason to believe that the title of your article has any validity.i am convenceed that any right thinking person,be they christian or not,would view the matter differently than you do,which is that there is no question that the law is wrong and that it needs to be overturned.to many of us,this prospect is untendenable.for some of us,christian and nonchristian alike,the matter of a woman's right to her own reproductive system -her own body,therefore,her own life-is paramount.christianity holds choice in the highest imaginable regard,believing,littertly or symbolically,that the creater allowed his creation to be severly damaged through allowing the first parents to make a choice,we are allowed to determine our own eternal destiny by choice.

Report Abuse

Thomas Gary

January 15, 2014  4:34pm

Vijay - my point was just the opposite! Did you even read what I wrote? I said that we should rejoice in saving lives but that will not be the end of the struggle for these kids in America. That's why I say Pro-Birth instead of Pro-Life for most people. They care only about the baby being born but nothing after that. On this site even many don't give a rip about creating loving families and communities to nurture the kids and what will come about when Roe v Wade is dead. We won't have Nirvana. We'll have a society where the children born (thank God!) will be facing a rough future (bad!). If you're from India then you should know exactly what I mean. It's easy to push Pro-Birth but hard to be Pro-Life: which means to be concerned about all people throughout the lengths of their lives until death. Being born into a cruel society is better than not being alive but God wants more for the children of the world! Peace

Report Abuse

stanley trent bemis

January 15, 2014  10:16am

ROE

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

January 14, 2014  9:31pm

Comrade Stuart (although not a comrade of mine), why not start with, say, metro Chicago? If you think the country is overpopulated with defective people, you may as well start there. I'm sure a whole lot of those people are defective in some way. This is the sort of inhumane ideology that God-less thinking leads to. Jason Taylor's comment is right on.

Report Abuse

Displaying 1–20 of 30 comments.

1 2 next page   Show All