Thank you for your response. Succinctly, I’ve heard someone describe your position as “pro-life and pro-choice.”

I agree that it is certainly more difficult in those situations. But I think it is those situations where my point is all the more important. It is where it is easiest to condemn that it is the most difficult to love — but also where love is most needed and effective.

I am hardly the person to represent anyone who’s had an abortion, never mind those who claim to have chosen one merely for convenience. However, is it not possible that though this is the reason they give to others, this is not a means not to deal with deeper pain regarding the situation — deeper reasons why terminating this pregnancy is preferable to having a child? Their own childhood trauma, for example, may play a conscious or subconscious role, and it is easier to convince themselves and tell others that they’d rather just not have the disruption at work, rather than deal with deeper issues. Of course, this is an example, and not a blanket statement. But where condemnation further reinforces this person not to address the issue, being loved where they expect condemnation may allow a person to be vulnerable enough with you and themselves to perhaps address those deeper reasons.

I was intentional in using the language “those who need and choose abortions” because both are equally in need of neighborly love, though perhaps in different ways, and for different reasons.

The truth is a trap … you cannot get the truth by capturing it, only by its capturing you. — Søren Kierkegaard, Journals.

The truth is a trap … you cannot get the truth by capturing it, only by its capturing you. — Søren Kierkegaard, Journals.