Medical Procedure

[Fat Old Guy]

So kasane, it should be legal because women are going to do it anyway? Hell, drunk driving should be legal because people are going to do it anyway. Tax fraud should be legal because people are going to do it anyway.

 

Sorry, that woman made her choice when she spread her legs.

[Fat Old Guy]

OGE, in more enlightened societies two things can happen with a murder conviction. The first is that the victim's family picks the punishment. The second is that the murderer is responsible for the victim's family and must care for them.

 

So the next best thing is to make the murderer feel the horror that his victim felt. Unfortunately, we use "humane" methods to execute people so the horror is only in the waiting and the long, last walk. If we really wanted justice, the punishment would fit the crime and murderers could be stabbed, shot, or beaten to death.

[kasane]

Well, lets get this straight right now gentlemen.

 

The moment you guys get pregnant, you get the chance to decide whether to carry to term or not.

 

 

[Adrianvs]

"I consider decisions between a physician and a patient to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's."

 

Does this extend to hit contracts? "I consider decisions between a hitman and a customer to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's."

 

It is not the child's doctor. The "patient" is not the one being killed. It is the child's business and responsibility alone. Not yours and not the abortion industry's. I find your logic intriguing, however. Let's extend it for a while.

 

On capital punishment:

"I consider decisions between an executioner and a government to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's."

 

On child abuse:

"I consider decisions between one parent and another to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's."

 

On segregation:

"I consider decisions between a police officer and a shop owner to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's."

 

On slavery:

"I consider decisions between a task-master and a land owner to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's."

 

On genocide:

"I consider decisions between an army and a dictator to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's."

 

 

The issue at hand is the rights of the third party whose life is being threatened, not the working relationship between those who conspire to take away those rights.

 

Medical procedure... How many medical doctors did Auchwitz and Dachau employ again?

[MarkNoel]

Some of the earlier comments here reminded me of this editorial cartoon (Flash animation) on the death penalty:

 

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/execution.html

 

Disclaimer: This guy does work for the San Francisco Chronicle, just so you've got an idea where he stands politically... ;-)

 

YiS,

-Mark

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

"The moment you guys get pregnant, you get the chance to decide whether to carry to term or not."

 

You made your choice when you opted to have sex.

[Rooster7]

Its really very simple. Abortion is the murder of an innocent child usually for the convenience of some selfish adults. The death penalty is not. Thats right. It is the execution of a murderer. The appropriate sentence for those in our society that do not value innocent life and who kill the same. So, when our government kills a murderer, they are not killing an innocent life. Thus, they are not committing murder. They are merely enforcing a just law. Christians, see Romans 13.

 

Scoutldr,

 

To those who dare criticize a woman's (or woman-child's) decision to have an abortion, I have just one question. How many have you adopted?

 

First, the United States does not have a problem finding parents for newborn babies. Second, even if it did, that fact doesnt preclude me from making a moral judgment on abortion. Your declaration is equivalent to saying Those who dare criticize a mans decision to abandon his family, I have one question. How many children have you supported? Both questions are inane.

 

Packsaddle,

 

I consider decisions between a physician and a patient to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's.

 

Hmmm. So, all doctors, by virtue of being a doctor, make morally sound decisions, which cannot be questioned by any one but the patient. Is that right? Some how I cant believe that you believe that to be true. Regardless, in reality, the unborn child is the patient he/she is the one that is having his/her life terminated. Who speaks for the child? The mother who cares more about her personal convenience than that of a childs innocent life?

 

As for the death penalty, I cannot conceive of Jesus supporting or condoning any person to be killed. Period. And I don't claim to have a higher authority than that. Obviously many do.

 

What do you think about God the father? He was able to kill. He once killed a couple of Israelites for simply touching the Ark of the Convent. God delegated authority to governments.

 

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rules are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is Gods servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. ROMANS 13 (RSV) 1 - 4

 

As for the other topic, no-one I know likes abortion. But that ability is here and NOTHING will eliminate that ability or the choice to use it. Nothing.

 

NothingThats pretty definitive. And yet, I dont see one fact that backs up that claim other than your declarative statement.

 

I feel that it should be made by the individuals who best know the case and who bear the responsibility for it: the physician and the patient.

 

Again, I hear no mention of the child and his/her choice. And what about the father? Oh yeah, hes just some self-centered man. How dare I bring him into the topic!

 

Adrianvs,

 

"No, I am not "for" abortion. But neither am I "for" bringing an unwanted, unloved child into the world, to a "parent" who cannot care for it either financially or emotionally."

 

First, if hes being brought into the world, he will be loved by God. But if youre not a Christian, maybe you can relate to that statement. No matter. Have you ever heard of adoption? Despite scoutldrs implication, the child will be adopted quickly. If not, theres still the sticky matter of murdering an innocent childso maybe we should just forget about the inconvenience of the mother, and concentrate on the innocence of the child!

 

 

hops_scout,

 

Short, sweet, and very astute. I like your style.

 

Kasane,

 

Yes, this is a "women's rights issue". Without their political pressure in the latter half of the last century, women would probably still be terminating their pregnancies with knitting needles and bleach.

 

Man! What does that say about women? I thought we (men) were supposed to the sex with the most base and cruelest nature. What do you think about a woman who think its more desirable to murder a child with bleach and then tear it apart bit by bit with a knitting needle, than to carry it to term. Just out of curiosity - Would this be the same knitting needle that she would use to darn some baby socks if she happens to change her mind?

 

I have no doubt that some women just might do as you described. If so, while I hope they survive any such ordeal it would be a self-inflicted ordeal. As such, it will take Gods grace and inspiration to make me understand such a woman. Her selfishness, her desire to have an unencumbered life, her unbridled obsession to have her will done at the expense of her baby - will not reverse my stand against the murdering of innocent children.

 

She can discuss the "morality" of the matter with herself, her religious counselor or any counselor (friend, social worker, etc) that she cares to pick.

 

Hmmm. Why dont we take the same position with rapists? Your supposition seems extremely silly to me.

 

[packsaddle]

Man, you guys sure took long enough.

My argument stands, I said before that no-one I know LIKES abortion. My approach is simply pragmatic:

the ability is there, the choice is there, you can't take either away, the persons involved in the choice should bear the responsibility.

 

OK Rooster7, I suppose some cataclysm that wiped out civilization could potentially eliminate the knowledge base that includes the abortion procedure. But it's fairly simple and probably would be rediscovered quickly. Short of that, the genie (the ability) is out of the bottle. The choice has always been there, always will be.

 

If anyone WERE able to impose control over such decisions (and ultimately you can't), they should also be willing to accept responsibility for the results. So far I'm not hearing any such assurance, only whining complaints.

 

A note. I consider the view of the Catholic Church to be fairly consistent in its approach to abortion (with which I obviously do not agree). They recognize that many of the popular forms of birth control effectively do the same thing or in fact cause an aborted pregnancy. Therefore they oppose birth control as well as abortion. This, at least, recognizes the facts and remains consistent with them. Rhythm, anyone?

 

With regard to the death penalty. I continue to be repulsed by the willingness of the state to kill an innocent person once in a while as long as it assures the state of killing all the guilty. No innocent person deserves that fate. Or is there some biblical mandate for killing the innocent as well? Oops, what am I saying?

[hops_scout]

Rooster, I'll bring that book home from school tomorrow and get the real quote:)(Read clean out locker:))(This message has been edited by hops_scout)

[Adrianvs]

Rooster,

 

I was quoting Scoutldr to refute him/her with the excerpt you took from my post. You would do well to read an entire post before quoting it. While I do not agree with every detail of your post, we are of the same opinion on the subject of abortion.

[Rooster7]

Adrianvs,

 

I must have been distracted by some of the other comments...and I lumped you in with them. My sincere apology. Peace.

[Adrianvs]

Rooster,

No need to apologize; I just wanted to make it clear that there was at least one more right-minded person on the issue.

 

Packsaddle,

I agree with you on the barbarism and errors of the death penalty BUT you fail to compare it accurately to abortion. Suppose for the sake of argument that ALL victims of the death penalty were innocent. Could we even then consider it as near a moral travisty as abortion. How many people are executed in the United States every year? I have the number of 71 in 2002. Ok, 71 innocent deaths in the course of a year. Compared to the traffic system, which takes 45,000 innocent deaths a year, the criminal justice system is relatively safe. What about abortion? Well, there are about 4,000 innocent deaths per day in the US alone. That adds up to well over a million innocent deaths per year. Even the number of late term babies who are born alive per year dwarfs those executed. These are children tossed in metal trays and set in a closet, suffocated, or beaten until they stop moving. Those inside the womb fare no better, of course. They are "executed" by acid bath, having their brains sucked out, or good old fashoned dismemberment.

 

 

Let's recap:

 

71 "innocent" deaths by lethan injection or gas per year

 

1,370,000 innocent deaths by acid bath, dismemberment, skull crushing, and (for the lucky) suffocation, beating, neglect.

 

 

Though it is of little consequence for some, we should remember that the vast majority of the 71 aren't innocent at all. By the worst estimates, it is closer to 5.

 

So packsaddle, you accept the reality of abortion but are "disgusted" by acceptance of capital punishment? Pardon the ad hominem, but are you chronically ignorant of the situation or on the payroll of the abortion industry?(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

[Adrianvs]

BTW, the Catholic Church does NOT consider contraception and abortion as morally equivalent actions. The Church rightly states that abortion is murder. The Church also rightly recognizes that the use of contraception is part of a mentality that separates sexuality from procreation. This ends up being dangerous to all involved and deadly for "accidental" children. Those who engage in such acts must be willing to accept that a human being could be formed as a result, no matter how many "precautions" they take. There are, of course, forms of "contraception" that are essentially abortificants. In these cases, the actions are considered abortion and not mere contraception.

 

 

I still can't get enough of pro-abort logic.

 

A fairly reasoned response to minimal innocent death:

"I continue to be repulsed by the willingness of the state to kill an innocent person once in a while as long as it assures the state of killing all the guilty. No innocent person deserves that fate."

 

And yet, a response to millions of innocent deaths:

"My approach is simply pragmatic: the ability is there, the choice is there, you can't take either away, the persons involved in the choice should bear the responsibility."

[packsaddle]

Adrianvs, You are clearly passionate in your views. I stated my views knowing that I would not convince anyone. Merely a statement. Thanks for yours. BTW I'm not on the payroll nor am I chronically ignorant, at least not for this subject.

However, I will never face the personal decision of whether, or whether not to have an abortion. I do recognize that the technology exists, that women have the ability to make the decision, and I merely think that under those circumstances they should be the ones to bear the responsibility for it. That IS the status quo and I am satisfied with it. Regardless, to wring my hands over this issue would have little effect one way or the other.

 

You are correct that the primary objection by the Catholic Church was in regard to procreation. However, I have learned that there are Catholics who interpret some of the same scriptures as being relevant to contraception. Here is a site that expands on this:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Of course modern contraceptive methods didn't all exist at that time and until 1930, most (all?) Protestant flavors were in agreement with the Catholic Church. But the Anglican church broke that and in time most Protestant flavors disagreed to some degree, at least on contraception. I merely mentioned the Catholic Church because I admire their consistency.

 

Every method of contraception that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg or that stimulates rejection of the fertilized egg after implantation is, in essence, aborting a human life (to use the pro-life definition). You might want to include those sensationally high numbers in your statistics (I have no source for them, though), the numbers should greatly eclipse those stated in your post. Some idea of their magnitude could be to multiply 13 cycles per year times, say 20-30 years of fertility, times the tens of millions of women worldwide who use those particular methods, times some fraction of the total eggs that happened to be fertilized. Even if the fraction was quite small, say once per 13 cycles, the total numbers would be impressive. To me, anyone using those methods over an adult lifetime has probably engaged in the equivalent of multiple abortions, again using the definition supplied by the pro-life view. In my view, they had the ability to use contraception, it was their choice, and it was their responsibility.

 

I do contrast the two issues, abortion and the death penalty, because I see the irony implied in the original post...only from the other view. Beyond that, for me they are separate issues, one being the personal decision of an individual over the fate of their body, the other being the decision of our society over the fate of an individual. However, where society decides to kill its members I do share the responsibility for such deaths, therefore I do what I can to promote my view. The death penalty is an issue where we do have collective ability, choice, and responsibility.

[littlebillie]

Wow - I am VERY impressed by what seems to be a LOT of folks who wouldn't engage in bonding or recreational sex, and who recognize sex as a procreative act only. Big families, or long periods of abstinence? 'k, ', I'm kidding.

 

IF WE OUTLAW ABORTION in this country, of course, we will simply be sending a lot of folks across the border or down the alley. I think that a responsible clinic - one that offers counseling and asks iteratively "are you sure?" is a better and safer way to go.

 

But that doesn't really address the morality of abortion, though, does it? As a parent, I believe all children are precious and the thought of deliberately ending and one of those precious lives.... ugh.

 

But as a male, I also recognize that I can never fully understand a woman's point of view - and here's where I intellectually take the PC cop-out of "individual choice". See, it's not just a question of "well, if you're pro-life, why don't you adopt?". That should also say, "If you're so pro-life, why don't you sponsor a single mother and help her and her baby out so the kid won't drop out of school and she can finish hers and get a decent job and give'em day care too while yer at it, yadda-yadda-yadda."

 

Many of the same folks who decry abortion also decry welfare, and that seems to be a vicious circle just waiting to start spinning. Bringing kids into the world when you know they will only suffer doesn't seem right, does it?

 

okay. here's another aspect that confuses me. when sperm hits egg, boom - does it have a soul? or does it take splitting to get that sould? at what point, and by what mechanism does a soul happen? this is a key question, obviously. is there a soul before there are brain cells? does the soul co-exist with the body, and grow as the embryo, fetus and child grows? or is it somewhere else, and associated remotely with the body?

 

if the soul is associated with just the first cell, what does that imply about clipping my fingernails? very confusing this - spiritually, I have to think well, on the one hand, just to be safe, no abortion or even prevention should be allowed, but on the other hand, you have to have tolerance for others' beliefs.

 

and - are there ethical atheist objections to abortion, or is that one of those things atheists ALL agree on?

 

for those of you who are rock-solid certain of your positions - well, my hat's off to you, and indeed, I envy you, whatever side of the fence you fall on.

 

and now, all THAT said - what about test-tube babies carried in host mothers? right? wrong? when does the soul happen? in the test tube, or after being placed in the host-womb, or...?