Abortion is a sensitive issue beyond question.

I love it that there are children praying for the unborn. I am not about denying true love and powerful feelings for defending the most innocent amongst us.

Since the issue is one that crosses that line of individual rights, and effectively places blame on one sex, it is essential to have both perspective and context. Without them, the most well meaning of intentions, the most heartfelt compassion’s, even the desire to serve your God as best you can to care for Creation; all these can fall prey to manipulation and deception. This too, is beyond question.


The usual; context. In many instances context is everything. It can make assumed unquestionable truths, out to be lies. It can prove the way to heaven to be the path to hell, brimming with good intentions. The issue is then about responsibility of all parties and sides of the debate. For some time a movement has been afoot to make this distinction over abortion to be one of the right to life verses the right to choose.

On the surface, it seems unconscionable, akin to evil, to think ones right to choose has precedent over a new souls right to choose. There is something callus about the distinction; a right to terminate a potential person, they never having a chance to even exercise that same right. Here is where distinctions can seem black and white, without much thinking for some to know which side is on the side of right and truth, and what is holy. These grounds can be in reality, quicksand.


What is there to debate about, to muse over morally or spiritually, when innocence is so clearly in one quarter?

This is a question I am afraid some never ask, there is no search for objectivity; you are for life or against it; you are for a woman’s right to chose or against it. Black and white is comfortable place to be in ones own mind. I am right and you are wrong. I am on Gods side and you have been seduced by Satan. My church leader, my feminist friend or group, whomever, is unquestionably with me on this. Could be that you are evil in my view because you let the government right in to my decisions on my body. To some, this seems a spiritual responsibility to ones right to be in charge of their own spiritual merit, a self evident spiritual imperative.

OK then. Both sides have their angle, both can have contempt for the other. Both can claim extreme position over someone else’s life and declare no one has a right to think or act otherwise, but what is wise?


That complicates things.

Black and white wish no shades of gray and ambiguity. They see that as either confusion or the other sides manipulation. It can have aspects of both those qualities for sure, it also can be the honest truth. Honest truth however, particularly if it leads to unresolved questions, is often not what religion nor politics are about. They are often about distinctions that determine that others are opposite you. Often this is implied to be against you. You may now be dependent on that sure authority for your own point of view. You may be in the above categories and attached to them in a dependency relationship that does not leave you honestly free to make up your own mind.

This kind of trap any of us can get into in various aspects of our lives. It can make us angry; we seem dependent on something someone else says is true yet we go along, pulled on strings of loyalty, duty, maybe trust, and they all can put us out on a limb. We can be uncomfortable about that. We can resent that. We can blame the others who believe differently for putting us in this precarious position inside our own identities. This can be the precise place manipulators of “wedge issues” wish you to be; you are angry, made dependent on them, and must reject any notions of gray or ambiguity, in effect, possibly placing you at odds with ultimate truth.


Some of the current abortion argument has to put itself in a very small box to be valid, cynically, that box is to stay formed long enough to become the ballot box. Concepts and context have to be trimmed down and highly emotionalized to make this happen. The most relevant concepts usually in the debate are individual and societal responsibility, when a life “begins”, and who has the right to say or do anything about ending life. The abortion argument is usually truncated to just apply to a pregnant woman, that is the only life and innocence to be considered.

Is it really? Can we cut away all of history and behavior, all of life and context, all of death and mans inhumanity to men, women and children, and assume God or government can isolate a pregnant women from all these proceeding issues? Only in most ignorant and stone-like abstraction.

Usually religious leaders and followers interpret most environmental events to be acts of God, often assuming some lesson, as a blessing or a curse, is being offered to be seen and felt. Modern people still sense some things this way as did the most “primitive” tribal peoples. For some tribes, a newborn is exposed to extreme danger for a fundamental reason in their cosmology; this is how we (particular tribe) survive under life’s conditions. I cannot say that is not Gods will to them. Cultural relativism is a gray area in human relationship. We can be certain other are wrong by our standards, and assume we are superior at understanding Life. This is a human right to disagree with how wrong others are, but it does not guarantee in each and every instance, that I am right.

I was first shocked at this older cultural relativism, it doesn’t fit perfectly with the modern day view of things. Just two examples that stuck in my mind were; I believe it was a tribe in Africa that put the newborn to (in my words) a “God test.” The child is placed on its own somewhere where a herd of animals if guided toward and past it. If the child lived, God had approved. (This is an after birth abortion, something the abortion issue must cut away from argument, for it would open a whole can of confusion over deaths occurring after birth by the actions of any of us.) Another tribe, I believe was in the southwest US region (if I remember this exactly), exposed a newborn to a scorpion bite, another kind of God test. They have to do this, because the scorpions were a main source of protein that they could not seemingly survive without. The presence of these scorpions in their life necessitated the building of immunity to their sting.

Both of my recalled examples above required mothers and fathers to face a horrible but necessary fact of existence, the former I believe being ordained by population pressure (if too many children are raised the environment could not support them, leaving the whole people at risk of disease, conflict and starvation), and the latter, by the reality of food and survival in that respect. Once again, the abortion issue, to arouse passions and elicit votes and followers, along with a purified sense of innocence, must cut away these seemingly ordained deaths from consideration, further boxing in their conviction.


Have I confused you at all? Do not be about this. I still hate abortions. I also kinda hate it that one day I will die, and I currently never know when! More oddly, if I was aborted by any of the above means near conception an birth, I would not have worries or bothers about it. I trust in Gods power, period.

We must make some assumptions about God when we defend innocence by demanding an end to all abortion. We must assume, in the ways of non believers, that our God is controlled by us! That if my mother fell and miscarried me, my soul would have no way of getting here. That seems awfully presumptuous about Gods limited abilities. It is said that 20%-%50% of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. If one believes in God, for some reason (do you have it?) God must abort up to half of us before birth. We all came quite close to God test abortion!

Then there are Bible stories of God speaking directly to people, (as many preacher today lay claim) even asking them to kill their newborn. How do I know God is unable to speak to a woman this way? How can I limit Gods power and intentions over life in her intimate care? I can if I am a blinded follower and have unplugged my God given, truth verifying critical thinking abilities, aborted them and had someones else’s inserted in over my own insecurities and uncertainty. Yea. Then I would be sure as black and white. Ready to throw the stones.

What if some of these reasons are man-made? What if mom smoking raised the risk of miscarriage, or something some company put into a lake or stream? Are these then like those tribal abortions? Human caused due to environmental issues? Or should we expand the right to life movement to hold all individuals and companies responsible that negatively impact the environment? Why not?

What about other human decisions that result in pregnancy? Why do we not interfere with them because they cause the termination of potential new innocent lives? Some conservative religions have the woman having no right to refuse the man. The man then presumed to act on Gods behalf. Are men guilty of abortion then, when they do not have sex with a woman they desire for some reason, even some strange woman walking down the street? Why not? They are preventing a new innocent life.

We can say the same about war and the death penalty. They stop men and women from both perhaps knowing God and doing Gods work on earth and having children. Once again, more lives terminated by human decisions, more lives aborted. Why do such questions never make it to the marketplace of ideas and issues as truths in the pro-life, or anti-life (from one angle) debate? Gray and ambiguity, a completely natural human reality check condition, yet not allowable in the isolation and alienation of abstraction based beliefs opponents need to boost their cause for whatever reason, known or unknowable but to themselves.

The argument on abortion would have us seem to believe, in its most emotionalized states, that some of us are for abortions as if we enjoy killing innocence and shoving it into Gods chosen ones face. While others think a woman’s so called right to chose seems to bear no weight of heavy and perhaps lasting responsibility, that may haunt her the rest of her life.


We also have ignored one fact that has always remained behind curtains, and in back alleys, and bathrooms, in this argument like it or not, all the laws you want to make or not. There will be girls and women who will be unable to bear a child for physical or psychological reasons. They will, and there is a long and tortured history of this, carry out an abortion on their own if they feel they must.

What weigh do we then bare, if they both die? What part have we, we men or the self righteous concerned for innocence, then played into these two aborted lives and the lives that may have followed. Is that not even more innocence kept from flowering? Is it easy for us to compartmentalize these further tragedies as not of our doing with no responsibility? That is quite a sophist trick if you can.


Why? I hate the situation. I despise the alienation of the girls and women, and especially the social network and culture they are in. I wish these lives would make it. I wish I could make a woman sure her parents would not kill her, or her boyfriend. I wish she did not think a child brought such a curse to her future. I wish she was not tricked and or raped. I wish innocence had a chance and there was thorough sex education for all. That all the presumed evil, manipulations and perversions alleged about sex would fall under the light of truth. I am angry as hell about it all, with all the deceptions that hide under a presumed sanctified and righteous cause.

I am angry that manipulators use ignorance for their own personal, religious and political gain, and do this in the name of God and innocence. I despise how their deception enlist honest and well meaning faithful souls to their cause, to cleave society rather than bring the connection of whole truth to bare. I despise them, yet understand their own innocence lost, that some persecution of some kind is likely an open wound in their hearts. I hate how some on the left think some right is clear and unquestionable. Do they want to know what that person and their family are really going through?

And so called conservatives or “family values” voters; while they seek to prevent education, while they promote alienation and division, while they blame those in a most horrible self turmoil over their decisions and fate, they claim to defend innocence in Gods name. I hate how that Name is thus taken in vain under a dark shadow of ignorance. Now it will be used to one political interest or others right of judgement. I do hate abortion!

But I will be no ones fool, in the name of God.

It is in this amazing privilege to discover Creation and try to succeed in our desires, with and in and through the worlds of others, we are able to know and grow closer to real truth and understanding.

We can make a difference and be honest while doing so.


I put this video in to show how those seeking to make abortion illegal, have not thought about the women who would have illegal abortions.  They did not think about it for they are likely being “used” by political interest to polarize society into us and them’s. The horror of abortion is abstracted into a true and false. The correct answer was assumed to be the answer.  As these folks seem to demonstrate; The answer seems absent.  Our emotions and care can be used agasint us in the name of morals or God.