There’s a lot of rage against women in the comments on this story, explicit and implicit. There doesn’t seem to be much actual sympathy for human life except for from Michael Tegeder himself.

The fertilized egg not implanting successfully is not the deliberate destruction of human life by man. I’m not lauding it, but it happens of its own accord without man’s intervention.

Actually, I used the word “control” in quotes to indicate that that was the term you used in your post. But it is a waste of time to debate if there is any “control” involved. It is the very nature of law to control behaviors to some extent.

When weighing in the balance “emotional suffering” vice the physical death of an unborn child, I would say the value of the life is superior to the emotional suffering. That is not to devalue that suffering which may be minimal or great. But it is not a cause above the life of the innocent human being who would be destroyed.

You say that with proper education and birth control abortion is very rare. Estimates are between 45-50,000,000 dead innocent unborn due to abortion in the US alone since Roe V. Wade (1973). That is not rare – it amounts to 14-1500 killed by abortion every single day.

You did not answer which was more an act of “control” over another.
My question is repeated herein: “You state that it is morally wrong to control a woman’s body. It is not morally wrong if that “control”
(preventing the destruction of her unborn child) protects another.
And, at worst, such “control” endures for only 1-8 months of time when the child might be embraced by her or others (adoption). But the “control” of abortion ends the innocent life of the unborn (not part of her body but resident within it as a separate human being). Which “control” is more coercive and which impact more enduring and violative of another?” Could you please give you opinion on which “control” is of greater magnitude?

“You seem to be all for controlling and inconveniencing and allowing another life to suffer emotionally( yes, suffer. Emotionally. From being forced to do something they don’t want to), physically and painfully for a POTENTIAL life.”

I do not consider the emotional suffering of carrying a child conceived by an adult engaging in the sexual act (the reproductive act of sexual intercourse). This is a natural and to be expected (even if not desired)consequence of having sex. I don’t believe that “I don’t want to be pregnant now” sufficient justification for the destruction of an innocent unborn child.

“Potential life” – The unborn child in the mother’s womb is doubtless human, with DNA distinctly its own and different from its mother (therefore not part of the mother’s body). The body of the child is growing with cells multiplying geometrically. The heart is beating and functioning before most women even know they’re pregnant. Logically and biologically it is distinct from its mother,
human (the product of human reproduction is definitionally human), and alive. It is a live human being whose potential increases throughout its life if not destroyed. It’s not potential life, it’s undeniably human life with incredible potential known only to it’s Creator.

It is wisdom to consider that God is doing the creative work and it is not accomplished without Him. If He is working out His plan for that life and all the lives that will touched by that life, who are we to then consider someone’s desire to kill an innocent superior to His to bless that one and so many others?

My late wife had an abortion at 18 years of age. We married when she was 27. For 10.5 years we were childless. She was haunted by that child’s death and through all those years when we were trying to conceive; she regretted with great sorrow that she killed that child. Her suffering was very real, and to a lesser measure, as her husband, I suffered with her. But she confessed that sin before the Lord, and she was forgiven. Now she’s in eternity and reunited with her child. I wasn’t the father, but know I too will get to know him (or her).

Abortion destroys an innocent human being created by God in the image and likeness of God. He has a problem with that. So do many men and women.

“You ask if we are judging who is more deserving of life. Your question is not well framed. We are stating that BOTH lives are deserving of protection. You state that it is morally wrong to control a woman’s body. It is not morally wrong if that “control”
(preventing the destruction of her unborn child) protects another.”

Your first sentence states that if abortion happens via stillborn or miscarriage (which is something that happens often) it’s okay.
Your second sentence states that you have to CONTROL the WOMAN to prevent an abortion via medically (which is something that with proper education and birth control is very rare) and it’s okay.
See this is what really gets me. You seem to be all for controlling and inconveniencing and allowing another life to suffer emotionally( yes, suffer. Emotionally. From being forced to do something they don’t want to), physically and painfully for a POTENTIAL life.

Some men and women have a problem with that.

While you cite an extreme case (abortions due to rape or incest are only a few percent of abortions at best – overwhelmingly abortions are elective and not done to pretct the lfiee of the mother). Are you saying that you would support legislation that would restrict abortion except for cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother?

You ask if we are judging who is more deserving of life. Your question is not well framed. We are stating that BOTH lives are deserving of protection. You state that it is morally wrong to control a woman’s body. It is not morally wrong if that “control”
(preventing the destruction of her unborn child) protects another.
And, at worst, such “control” endures for only 1-8 months of time when the child might be embraced by her or others (adoption). But the “control” of abortion ends the innocent life of the unborn (not part of her body but reisent within it as a separate human being). Which “control” is more coercive and which impact more enduring and violative of another?

In failing to protect these innocents from slaughter and in furthering same, President Obama invites judgement on himself, and, as duely elected leader of this nation, on the United States of America.

It is time for national repentence, ceaseless prayer, and sobriety.

It is written that the Lord can change the heart of the king as the course of a river. Let us then urgently pray for a change of heart of the President and that God gives him abundant wisdom in all his decisions.

Your statement #8 “That makes God the world’s biggest abortionist.” lacks theological cohesion. God is the Author of all life. He determines the number of our days, knowing the fullness of them before there is one. That 25% of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted (I’ll assume your statement correct)does not make God an abortionist. God is (like it or not) sovereign. If, in His wisdom, a fertized ovum does not survive to term is an act of His sovereignty does not make Him a murderer(that innocent life will be before Him and has not died to eternity with his Creator). Man is prohibited by God from murdering, from shedding innocent blood. God gathers all men through death to Himself for judgment – and God is not wicked because sinful men may bring that life to an end. He is a rewarder to the oppressed and victimized, and a just judge to the wicked and unjust. In none of this has He transgressed any moral code.

Father Tegeder is a decent man who dedicates his life to helping others. He has done many wonderful things to those who need it. I bet none of you have ever met him or know him on a personal level, and it certainly seems like none of you have done your research on him outside of extremist Catholic blogs. And to say he is endangering his immortal soul and those of his parishioners is to be extremely cruel and very un-christian. The meaning of catholic is a unified church, a togetherness, and you are all supporting creating a more “pure” church which is entirely the opposite! Honestly, I think most of you are not capable of looking at this issue and ARTICLE in the big picture. Being “dissident” is a very creepy statement, because you are saying that nobody in the catholic church is allowed to consider the reasoning behind decisions or positions on tough issues, but to blindly follow. Since you are all throwing out the word Nazi everywhere, why don’t you think about how this applies to your own view of “dissident” members of the church. Who else blindly followed their leaders, and where did that take them?

I don’t agree with abortions, I wish they never had to happen. But the issue is so much more complicated than the Nazi Holocaust, and the comparison is unfair. Yes, the unborn don’t have voices to stand up for themselves. But we are also talking about another life – that of the mother, and if she has been raped by her brother and ends up pregnant, you want to force her to either a) carry a daily reminder of this in her womb, a VERY hard physical and mental thing to force a young woman to do or b) go through a dangerous, unregulated, and potentially fatal illegal abortion. The issue is that it is morally wrong to take a life, but it is also morally wrong to control a woman’s body. Making abortion illegal is saying the life of one is more important than the life of another. Is any of us capable to judge who is more deserving of life? If this woman gets an illegal abortion, should she be tried for murder?

As an aside, Father Tegeder is simply stating that this campaign is not the best use of the money of the Catholic Church. Nobody can oppose individual citizens writing to their senators or to the president regarding their views on this issue, and the Catholic Church has a right to encourage their parishioners to become involved in this. What Father Tegeder is saying is that not only is this campaign costly, but it also is meant to present the issue in an attacking manner, which isn’t Catholic at all, because it avoids talking about the issue in a realistic way and definitely would paint the Catholic Church as unwilling to accept and work with the change in our government.

Also, some of you say you don’t “cherry pick” from the Bible. Then of course, you are also aware that in the Bible, God kills thousands of Egyptian babies (or does that not count because they aren’t in a Christian nation) and also says that eating shellfish is a sin as bad as laying with a man, and that women should not braid their hair. I guess we should also set up a postcard campaign against Red Lobsters and hair-braiding salons everywhere. What better use of our money than say, charity to those who are already born and desperately need help.

Intellectually dishonest, counter intuitive drivel. Abortion is not reproduction, it is the termination of the reproductive process.

No hard feelings Mr. Hanson and I wish you the best!!