The abortion rate of women living under the poverty level is more than four times that of a woman living above %300 of the poverty level.

As for the number of middle class woman vs imppoverished women having abortions, women with family incomes over $60,000 count for only 13.8% of abortions.

I think looking at the statistics by race also helps:

“While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.”

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

2.) (and this is done in all humility/sicerity—though in all honesty, a bit of frustration as well)

Only liberals abort their babies. If you think conservatives have such horrible philosophies then why not vote pro life so more babies can be brought up liberal?

As a Social Worker, Brah, if someone brought that comment up to another in an abortion clinic, they’d probably be laughed at—or in danger of being beaten up by others offended, seeing that many who’re CONSERVATIVE have had abortions. Happens all the time, as the stereotype that those who’re liberal/impoverished are the only ones having abortions is a flat lie…..and without any OBJECTIVE Evidence whatsoever. How many would be surprised by the stories of folks from the conservative middle class due and how many chose to have an abortion for fear of what their parents would think—as having a pregnant daughter within a high-class family might ruin the family name and in fear she doesn’t alert them. That, or the father simply doesn’t wish to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions when he simply wanted to “get it & hit it” and manipulates her into thinking it’s the best thing for the relationship. The stories could go on….but again, wanted to be clear that those having something as horrendous/traumatic as an abortion are NOWHERE near the claim of “liberals’ only….and saying otherwise is borderline slanderous.

Let me be the one to be embararrased since I didn’t figure out another way to characterize the mentality being expressed by those who elevate political action over evangelism. The statement was about their treatment of the gospel or the “Christian” label as a means for an agenda other than Christ’ glory. I was speaking the truth in love through the clarity of the analogy, however, let me try again:

And where is the gospel in all this? Probably standing in the front yard of it’s home about to be shot up with Proposition AK-47 ballots. (Gang Bangers mentality)

And where is the gospel in all this? Probably in the kitchen cooking the eggs for the free breakfast program. (Black Panthers mentality)

D.A. I don’t hate you. I apologize that you were hurt by my statement. But not that you were convicted by my analogy. You should have been. You see, I was greatly offended that you made the mission that my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ gave to us, His disciples for which he gave His life, to spread the message of His kingdom through the preaching of the gospel, a secondary issue. Perhaps it should be a “both/and” issue. But if it’s an “either/or” issue, then believers must side with the gospel. So many politically active Christians are seeking to save certain rights that neither Jesus, His apostles, the early church for 300 years or the persecuted churches everywhere in the world today had. And all under the guise of protecting “Christian” freedom. That’s baloney.

Now you can either ignore the apology and my attempt to provide the context and comparative examples for my analogy or you can accept them both and allow your views to be challenged. Again, if I’m so ignorant, then it should be quite easy to refute me, no?

By the way, Lionel, I submit to any decision you make as to the continuance of this dialogue even the deletion of any of my comments that you feel D.A. may be correct about. I certainly did not want to violate the “Pursuit of Edification” which is completely biblical and with which I totally agree.