Do you think Roe vs. Wade will ever be overturned?

I hope so, but I wouldn't bet the barn on it.

Abortion aside, if the next President does not stand against it what you will see is further manipulation of embryonic stem cells. This will make abortion highly profitable and new embryos will be sought for ever increasing research.

 

I never know how to answer these questions because while I don't believe Roe is likely to be overturned, I don't want to be a discouragement for anyone to try to make a difference. I think history, and especially the recent history of western culture, shows a straight path toward immorality and the devaluation of life. I've never seen this trend reversed, but I try to hold out hope that it can be.

And who knows, maybe Jesus will return soon and set things aright!

 

Amen to that. Things will be great in Heaven. :thumbs:

 

Honestly, I don't think it will be overtunred any time soon, if ever.

That said, I do believe that emphasis should be placed on fostering and promoting a prolife attitude in general, rather than fighting the law of the land. Just because abortion on demand is legally permissible does not mean that anyone has to go through an abortion against her will, although, to tell you the truth -- sad as it is -- there have been young unmarried girls known to me who have been coerced by their own parents (mothers mostly, of all people) to procure abortions.

As a nation, we moan and groan about teenage pregnancies, young girls who choose to keep their babies rather than giving them up for adoption (when there are so many couples desperate to have children). At the same time, the media lauds those unmarried women who choose to announce their out-of-wedlock pregnancies, keep their babies, and raise them as single mothers (or with "partners"). Because there is barely any stigma attached to out-of-wedlock pregnancies -- thank you, Hollywood -- we have seen a decrease in abortions, but an increase in young unmarried women keeping their children. They ARE NOT all wealthy "it" girls, either. Sooner rather than later, they discover how hard it is to be a single mother. In the meantime, "regular" working-class or middle-class infertile couples who, 40 years ago, would have had no problem adopting an infant, are finding it almost impossible.

Giving a baby up for adoption wasn't easy 40 years ago. Neither is it easy today. But making heroines of unmarried mothers helps no one -- not the mothers so eager to give it a try, the babies they are trying to raise, nor the couples out there who would so joyfully raise those children in a stable, two-parent home.

Call it marketing strategy, if you must, but those individuals and groups who would like to see an end to abortions MUST change the focus of their unhappiness with the law of the land. Stop glamorizing out-of-wedlock parenthood. (Babies are not toys, or the latest must-have accesories!) Start teaching children to view marriage as a sacramental (or at least covenantal) union, in which having children before one acquires the second car or house with a family room AND 2.5 bathrooms...or the WOMAN becomes too old to conceive easily is desirable, not irresponsible. (Time and hard work will reap rewards, but young couples don't have to have X number of dollars in the bank before having children! What's wrong with some penny-pinching when a family is young?) Emphasize the generosity of those young women who choose to give up a child to a loving traditionally married couple for adoption. I don't pretend to have all the answers, by any means, but it's a start.

IMHO, the goal of pro-lifers should be not necessarily working to abolish Roe v. Wade, but rather working toward the ultimate goal that nobody wishes to avail herself of an abortion as a moral option.

 

An excellent post, Cara. Thank you for sharing.

 

As if the current focus is not both. And it should be both.

 

Which candidate meets your high standards and deserves your vote?