A Christian Nation?

[packsaddle]

Dan, I agree. A little more about the IUD and pill...

The jury is still out on the IUD. At one time we were certain that in many cases the IUD prevented implantation. Now there is evidence that it prevents fertilization. Except for that small fraction of women who get pregnant anyway. So there is still some doubt about it.

As for the pill, I refer Ed to this link:

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

Not much equivocation there. Straight from the pro-life horse's mouth, the pill causes abortions.

I'm still waiting regarding in-vitro fertilization. Waiting.

 

[evmori]

I would expect no less from a pro-life site.

 

Q: How Does the Birth Control Pill Work?

 

A: Birth control pills, or oral contraceptives, contain hormones that suppress ovulation. During ovulation an egg is released from the ovaries, without ovulation there is no egg to be fertilized and pregnancy cannot occur.

 

No abortion here contrary to the link you posted.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[DanKroh]

Ed, that is how oral hormone-based contraceptives are *supposed* to work. However, in actuality, in a small percentage of cases, ovulation *does* occur, but the presence of hormones in the maternal bloodstream prevents implantation. Thus, the fertilized egg (actually a multi-cell zygote at that point) is shed by the body.

[evmori]

Ed, that is how oral hormone-based contraceptives are *supposed* to work. However, in actuality, in a small percentage of cases, ovulation *does* occur, but the presence of hormones in the maternal bloodstream prevents implantation. Thus, the fertilized egg (actually a multi-cell zygote at that point) is shed by the body.

 

Ahh! I thought from your previous post it happened all the time! At least that's what you led me to believe! But based on you last post, this is more like an exception to the rule than the norm like you led me to believe.

 

But abortion being murder is more the norm than the exception. Especially partial birth abortion.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[funscout]

DanKroh, I sympathize with you over your emotional decision to terminate your second set of twins. I think most of us have made it clear that we, too, would choose the mother's life over the baby's, even though this would be a painful decision.

 

I have to agree with Ed, though, in saying that MOST women who choose abortion do so because of the inconvenience. I personally know of 4 women who had abortions during their college years, and each of them did so only because they were single and didn't want the shame and inconvenience of being pregnant. Two of these women even had TWO abortions during their college years. I have no idea what happened to them in later years, because they were not close friends of mine.

 

Packsaddle, I don't know enough about in vitro to have an opinion. I'm sorry I've kept you waiting. I do not like the idea of implanting numerous eggs in a woman, as we've seen the health consequences of carrying multiple babies.

 

Someone else mentioned that Catholics are against the "prevention" of life, and that is true. The ONLY birth control that is okay with the Catholic church is abstinence, or the "rhythm method", which calls for abstinence while a woman is ovulating. We all know how well that worked, given the large size of Catholic families in the past.

 

The way I look at this issue is this:

Those of us who are pro-life/anti-abortion feel that the life of the unborn child is more important than the convenience of the mother (with the exception of life threatening pregnancies.)

Those who are pro-choice/pro-abortion feel the mother's choice is more important than the life of the unborn baby.

[funscout]

I decided to lighten up this emotionally charged discussion on reproduction by telling a funny story about a family friend. When my brother was in 6th grade, he and one of his friends came home one day and told my mom all about the "sex talks" they had had at school that day. The other boy then looked at my mom with a serious face, and said, "Don't tell my mom because she doesn't know about this!"

[GernBlansten]

Ed, do you know how many partial birth abortions are performed annually? Do you know the proportion to total abortions (not counting IUDs and the pill)?

[DanKroh]

Ed, I made no such implication that oral contraceptives worked exclusively by preventing implantation. However, just because it is the exception rather than the norm does not change the fact that it results in what is technically an early abortion.

 

Funscout, I think that view is a vast oversimplification of a complex issue. Also, I think it is incorrect to characterize everyone who is pro-choice as also being pro-abortion. I am personally not in favor of abortion, except under certain circumstances (health of the mother, rape, incest), however, I am not willing to force my view on others, nor do I think it is the place of government to regulate reproductive choices. Just because I am understanding and nonjudgemental of the reasons a woman may choose abortion is not the same as being in favor of it.

[Beavah]

Ed, that's a nice story. But remember your mother CHOSE. That's my point. If the pro-life arguments are sufficiently persuasive, the choice will be agreeable to them, as was your mother's choice.

 

Sure. Our ideal and desire is always that people freely choose to do the right thing.

 

I hope all of our scouts freely choose not to smoke or do drugs. And it would be nice if they so chose because their parents' arguments or ours were sufficiently persuasive.

 

But we still choose to help them make decisions by criminalizing possession and by criminalizing sale of drugs (or cigarettes to minors). In fact, if we're honest, this is part of the argument we're using to persuade them - that doing drugs is illegal, and comes with consequences. "See, look at John Q. in your school who got expelled and arrested for drugs. You see how it can screw up your life?"

 

There are always temptations. Temptations to steal to improve your life. Temptations to escape from it all with heroin. Temptations to kill a child so that you might live the lifestyle you prefer. The law, and its consequences, are part of the way we help people avoid temptations and make good choices.

 

----

 

There's no argument that our brothers & sisters in the Catholic & Orthodox communities are logically consistent: life begins at conception, no artificial birth control, no in-vitro. No tinkering with the start of life.

 

I think da rest of us can make an argument in terms of intent. The intent of artificial birth control is to prevent conception, a reasonable act (unless you believe that sex is a manifestation of love that should be unconditional, and therefore open to new life).

 

That birth control has the occasional/rare/unpredictable unintended consequence of causing an abortion by failure to implant is regrettable, but not criminal. We must remember that a number of babies die from failure to implant even without the presence of hormonal agents. It is "natural" to that extent.

 

The intent of invitro fertilization is to help a couple have a child. That's a good thing (unless you view such artificial mechanisms as a form of selfishness and control, rather than openness and love - by wanting to select a boy, or a blonde, or our own genetic kid rather than adopting).

 

That in vitro generates extra embryos is an unfortunate and unintended consequence. It is something that should be "fixed" in the technology. But until that happens, the embryonic child should be treated with dignity. Not experimented on. Not disposed of. Preserved until natural death or the chance for life can be given him/her.

[DanKroh]

Gern, from the CDC website:

 

Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 60% were performed at 21 weeks.

 

I could not find data on how many of the 1.4% of late-term abortions were performed for medical reasons.

 

[Beavah]

Ed, that's a nice story. But remember your mother CHOSE. That's my point. If the pro-life arguments are sufficiently persuasive, the choice will be agreeable to them, as was your mother's choice.

 

Sure. Our ideal and desire is always that people freely choose to do the right thing.

 

I hope all of our scouts freely choose not to smoke or do drugs. And it would be nice if they so chose because their parents' arguments or ours were sufficiently persuasive.

 

But we still choose to help them make decisions by criminalizing possession and by criminalizing sale of drugs (or cigarettes to minors). In fact, if we're honest, this is part of the argument we're using to persuade them - that doing drugs is illegal, and comes with consequences. "See, look at John Q. in your school who got expelled and arrested for drugs. You see how it can screw up your life?"

 

There are always temptations. Temptations to steal to improve your life. Temptations to escape from it all with heroin. Temptations to kill a child so that you might live the lifestyle you prefer. The law, and its consequences, are part of the way we help people avoid temptations and make good choices.

 

----

 

There's no argument that our brothers & sisters in the Catholic & Orthodox communities are logically consistent: life begins at conception, no artificial birth control, no in-vitro. No tinkering with the start of life.

 

I think da rest of us can make an argument in terms of intent. The intent of artificial birth control is to prevent conception, a reasonable act (unless you believe that sex is a manifestation of love that should be unconditional, and therefore open to new life).

 

That birth control has the occasional/rare/unpredictable unintended consequence of causing an abortion by failure to implant is regrettable, but not criminal. We must remember that a number of babies die from failure to implant even without the presence of hormonal agents. It is "natural" to that extent.

 

The intent of invitro fertilization is to help a couple have a child. That's a good thing (unless you view such artificial mechanisms as a form of selfishness and control, rather than openness and love - by wanting to select a boy, or a blonde, or our own genetic kid rather than adopting).

 

That in vitro generates extra embryos is an unfortunate and unintended consequence. It is something that should be "fixed" in the technology. But until that happens, the embryonic child should be treated with dignity. Not experimented on. Not disposed of. Preserved until natural death or the chance for life can be given him/her.

[evmori]

Sorry Dan. That was packsaddle. My mistake.

 

Technically you are correct, Dan. But in reality, the women who are taking birth control are trying to prevent getting pregnant not trying to kill their unborn child.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

I posted a link to the pro-life site because, if one reads it in its entirety, the site has an extensive discussion of all the ways birth control produces abortions. I chose the pro-life site because I wanted to find a source that had the most critical view possible of birth control - and coincidentally a site that I thought would be aligned to the anti-abortion view. Was I wrong? You DO have to read beyond the headline.

 

I asked some of my pro-life contacts about this issue a long time ago. They seemed nervous about answering but they told me that because of what you read on that web site, they are hoping to outlaw some of these forms of birth control. Intent by the woman has no bearing on their decision, only the facts as to how these methods work. They recognize the intent argument as the cop-out it is.

 

Funscout, the anecdote was humorous but it contained a little truth as well. Many women do not know these things, especially poor women with few resources available. You made a personal choice. Why is it that you would have the government deny this ability to other persons?

 

As for in-vitro fertilization, if a law is passed giving those embryos legal standing, I predict mass murder (disposal of the extras) just prior to the law going into effect. If IVF is not addressed, it will remain a problem that otherwise can't be reconciled with the pro-life view. At least one of my pro-life contacts has admitted they hope to end in-vitro fertilization on this basis.

 

Technology is going to continue to bring these problems. For example, the developing ability to therapeutically target cancer cells (the so-called 'silver bullet' approach) is also going to spin off the ability to target any tissue that has a recognizable genetic difference. The 'pill' technology, as we know it, will become a potent private, anonymous means of terminating pregnancies and the government will find its regulation more and more difficult.

 

The technology genie is out of the bottle and women who can afford it ARE going to have a choice. They are going to continue to make their choice for any reason they wish, including convenience if that is the case. It is going to be easier, more anonymous, and more convenient in the future because as laws limiting certain procedures are passed, there will be greater profit potential in the alternatives. And there is NOTHING anyone can do to stop this.

 

Except, of course, for poor women for whom the government may be able to force its way into their reproductive decisions and force them to continue to bear unwanted children. Does this sound like success to anyone?

[Beavah]

Aw, packsaddle. Yeh were waitin' and proddin' us to talk about birth control and in-vitro from our perspective, then rather than answerin' us, you retreated to statements from anonymous "pro-life contacts" that you could straw man. Very disappointin. Yeh had un-anonymous pro-life ladies and gents right here.

 

No question that genetic technology is proceedin' at a pace faster than most of society has had a chance to think about and discuss, let alone reach consensus on. Frankly, that's pretty scary. Just because we can do somethin' doesn't mean we should. The race to tinker with genetics because it's an interestin' scientific problem reminds me of the race to build better thermonuclear devices to kill people in cities because that, too, was an interestin' scientific problem.

 

The only thing to date which has kept us from a genetically engineered disaster is that life seems to be very fragile. Almost no genetic "accidents" survive in the lab or in the wild.

 

I'm surprised you stopped in your discussion where you did. That genetic-target "silver bullet" cancer pill you mention can also be used to target and murder an unborn child. But it doesn't stop there. It can be used to target and murder any specific individual simply and anonymously.

 

Like it or not, society (through taboo or restriction or aggressive prosecution) is going to have to get a handle on many of the possible uses of genetic technology. Because stable reproducing genetic life is fragile and rare, it is much easier to use such technology to kill than to save.

 

 

[LongHaul]

If we go with the life begins at conception view and say in-vitro fertilization is wrong because it results in the death of fertilized eggs then how do we address protecting fetus from smoking, drinking, reckless mothers? How do we determine if a woman is pregnant before we sell her cigarettes or alcohol? Its already law that if you serve a person and alcohol plays a part in that persons harm or that persons harming another then you can be held liable. How do we enforce such a law? Or do we only enforce it sometimes, a law of convenience or persecution? The woman who has money and leaves the country to get an abortion what about her? She transported a protected life out of the country with the intent of committing murder. Do we make every female take a pregnancy test before allowing her to leave the country? So many want to legislate myopically and ignore the full scope of the result of such legislation. If a person took a child out of the country without consent of that child, murdered it and then returned admitting murder would they be prosecuted? If we truly believe that every fertilized egg deserves a chance to live and are willing to pass laws to insure that protection we must decide punishment for breaking those laws. We must decide how we intend these laws to be enforced. If abortion was ruled murder would we advocate lethal injection for a woman who swallowed a morning after pill? How about if she took an RU pill after the test showed positive? How about the doctor who inserted a vacuum tube into the uterus and removed a 4 week old fetus. Again lethal injection? How about the doctor who inserted that vacuum tube into the soft spot of a 38 week old fetus and removed its brain tissue. My point is we seem to find it more appalling and requiring retribution the older the fetus gets, why?