Abortion Ban In Nicaragua

Nicaraguan President Enrique Bolanos has signed into law a ban on all abortions, even in cases when a woman's life is judged to be at risk.

There will be no more exceptions like the case of nine year old girl, raped and four months pregnant, whose parents wanted to save her from carrying the pregnancy to term and managed to secure an abortion for her.

Her parents and doctors who carried out the procedure were excommunicated from the Roman Catholic church and prosecutors threatened to bring charges against those responsible.

Nicaraguan Roman Catholic bishops wrote an open letter to the government asking whether there was any real difference between abortion and terrorist suicide bombings.

Well, they won, and now all women and children who become pregnant via rape and/or are in danger from pregnancy will have to be aborted by illegal means, leave the country for an abortion if they have the money, or carry the pregnancy to term and/or die.

Comments

[Psalmist]

Doubtless this will be greeted with significant joy by many Christians. My heart breaks for the babies born to nine- and ten-year-old girls, as well as the girls themselves. Legislation like this seems to devalue life once it is born, for the sake of taking a superficial "pro-life" stand. The lives of the girls who will die in pregnancy and childbirth, the lives of the babies handicapped for life by malnutrition and the mothers' immature bodies, the lives of the stillborn babies, seem to matter not at all. No, abortion is rarely a solution. But when a child is raped, should her life be forfeit or severely jeopardized for the sake of politicians' self-promotion? How is that any different than those social systems that advocate pronouncing the death sentence on women who are raped?

I don't think it's always even the "unborn" who are being idolized by the factions of the "pro-life" movement that can straight-facedly make decisions like this one. It's pregnancy. The bigger, the later term, the better. As long as she doesn't abort the baby, who cares what happens to her or the baby?

And here in the U.S., we have ample evidence that there's little or no thought--and certainly less and less money--put toward improving the lives of mothers and their children. I was unable to sleep a couple of nights ago and happened on an overnight show by a televangelist--one of those ageing "barbie and ken" kind of husband-wife teams--bemoaning America's "greatest sin": the six-digit figure for out-of-wedlock births. Uh, would that many more abortions have been "less sinful"? We demonize women who abort their babies. We demonize unmarried women who get pregnant, and who give birth to their babies. We say we believe women should stay home with their young children, yet we demonize those poor (impoverished) women who draw public assistance in order to do so. We demonize programs such as WIC and Head Start as wasteful drains on citizens' hard-earned tax dollars. The fact is, we expect a magic-wand solution so that everyone marries young, has a fairly large number of children, carries them all to term, mom stays home to care for them, dad never loses his job and has plenty of money to provide for them, and society never has to spend a cent to worry ourselves over any family. We're such hypocrites! It's always somebody else's problem. We're so NOT our sisters' and childrens' keepers.

God is NOT being honored by the legislation in Nicaragua. As long as the victims of rape are the only ones who have a high price to pay for the crime, even secular justice is not being served. Oh, well. As long as there are no abortions, all's right with the world, I guess. (feeling sick)

[Phil Dziki]

Pat,

After viewing this for the first time, I am going to be a little bit disappointed if in fact after your plunge into the egalitarian (All We Were Meant To Be) views concerning marriage, that you have slid down the hill toward pro-abortion (choice?) beliefs, from a solidly biblical evangelical views that you had. As someone who knows your husband well, and who graduated from Moody (took many courses from him), and who graduated from Calvin with 2 majors, who also went thru and experienced the humanistic muck of the 70's, I cannot believe that you have not resisted all of that, or come to see how bogus much of it was. What next - biblical defense of gay rights, which is the general path the Sojourner types have taken (many intellectual elitists from Calvin have gone that route). I am not a Dobsonite, but goodness gracious, let let loose of those phoney humanistic days and screwball pseudo-intellectual/evangelicals of the 1970/80s.

[Pat Gundry]

Phil, It could be useful to take a longer look at this blog and also my blog www.makeabortionunnecessary.com before you draw the conclusions you've expressed in your comment.

I never plunged into anything egalitarian, I came at it slowly and carefully, via my own Bible study. My book Woman Be Free, about applying the art and science of hermeneutics to Bible passages about women had nothing to do with the book All We're Meant To Be. I respect the authors of that book, but it was written during the time I was writing mine and I did not see it until after mine was completed. My views about marriage are my own and not derived from Hardesty and Scanzoni's work at all.

The presupposition you've presumed is inaccurate. I have not slidden anywhere. My views on abortion are set out plainly on my blog/site www.makeabortionunnecessary.com.

I'm not aware of humanistic muck in the 70's. I am aware that "humanism" was a favorite label to put on many people as some sort of derogatory term then. But, I never thought it appropriate to do that. And, your knowing my husband, having taken classes from him, and graduating from Calvin really has no relevance to my blog, nor my views on abortion.

There's nothing humanistic (in the way you're implying) about my beliefs regarding abortion.

I believe that human rights should be extended to all people. But I leave the work toward gay rights to others. It's not an area I have any desire to study enough to have a well informed opinion about.

There is no connection between my beliefs and work and any "Sojourner types," "intellectual elitists from Calvin" nor "phoney humanistic days," or "screwball pseudo-intellectual/evangelicals." You're assuming too much. You don't know me well enough to know if there is such a connection, and haven't read enough of what I've written to know whether what you've concluded is valid or not.

I think it's insulting for you to dismiss my honest and compassionate work to help prevent the need for abortion before reading enough of what I've written to know what I actually think and say on the subject. If you do choose to read enough to have an informed opinion about it, maybe you'll also want to come back here and apologize.