Anglicans March for Life 2014 We joined the March for Life in DC Walk for Life in San Francisco, California Georgette with Anglican Bishops at 2014 March for Life Georgette and Bp. Menees Greet our Walk for Life West Coast Partners ~~~~~~~ Georgette Honored at Walk for Life for Her Commitment To Life! Anglicans for Life is proud to announce that our Prez, Georgette Forney received the 2014 St. Gianna Molla Award at the Walk for Life this year! Our friends at EWTN shared their video coverage of the Walk for Life on YouTube here: Georgette Receives Award When you scroll to 1:04:14 in the video, you will see Georgette introduce Bp. Eric Menees and his amazing bi-lingual Invocation followed by The Walk for Life West Coast presenting Georgette with the St. Gianna Molla Award for her dedication to the men and women of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign and the sanctity of every human life! Click here for the rest of the article: http://anglicansforlife.org/content/march-life-and-walk-life
I'm rather surprised this organization exists at all. Does it care about people after they are born? Like the homeless? Thankfully, I live in a country where there is no abortion law whatsoever (Canada) and that we deal with this only as a health issue, and that we have a lower abortion rate than our American friends as a consequence. Organization like this actually make things worse for both the abortion rate and for women. Jut saying.
With all due respect Ogygopsis, a health issue? Certainly sometimes it is, but not most of the time. Someone simply doesn't want the child they are carrying.
That is not how it happens. The usual situation is a young, single person, poor, limited resources finds themselves pregnant. You can certainly say that getting pregnant/having sex is the original error. But that would be naive. The Kinsey studies in the 1950s told us that even then sex exterior to marriage was common. The frequency of sex before and without marriage at all has increased since then. There are two main reasons I see. First, the social conditions for poor people are worse. Those without have less than they did, say in the 1980s (those with, have more and pay lower taxes, but this is a different issue.) The level of desperation and suffering is more than most people imagine. So, they end up in relationship, brief or long, for merely a little comfort. To have the child puts them in the situation of continuing the cycle of poverty,and they usually have limited parenting skills. I have done many parenting assessments for Family Court here. Those who keep their children find that without support and money, the community, in the form of neighbours, social workers, schools, assess them as not capable of parenting, and their children are then seized. The foster placement situation is dire. The homes have many children, with many problems, and the resources there are scant. We have a provincial inquiry started now regarding children dying whilst in foster care. If you are anti-abortion, are you willing to pay for the parental support to keep the child with the parent, failing that for foster care? Would you be willing to return to tax levels from the 1970s? My current marginal tax rate in Canada tops out at 36%, if this was 1975, I'd pay 52%. Would this be something the anti-abortion league would go for? On another tack, we have women now in higher education at higher levels than men in all medical and health professions, as teachers, and other areas, with only engineering and applied science where men are the majority. Women find that if they are forced to carry children to term when they are not wanted means that they don't have these opportunities. That if they stop training or never enter it, then they are sentenced to the 1950s type of life, of home, children and no personal fulfilment. It is not for me as a man to dictate that this is good enough for a woman. Granted and thankfully, ready access to birth control means that abortion rates are dramatically lower in situations where health (including mental and social health) are paramount. So yes, it is health first.
None of the above circumlocutions can avoid the fact that there is a human life involved, and that life doesn't become less valuable if somene's "feelings" get pinched on a rainy day, or if they suddenly have a job promotion next week. Yes if needed the woman needs to work less and take care of the child. It is for me as a Christian, whether a man or not, to say what is good for human life, and morality, as created and taught by God, none of which concepts (I notice) had importance in your lengthy post.