A Christian Nation?

[Beavah]

LongHaul,

 

I think yeh use ordinary jurisprudence, eh? Packsaddle makes a big deal out of how sometimes drugs that prevent ovulation also work by preventing attachment to the uterus. But if we're honest, there's really no risk of prosecution there. No way of the state ever having evidence.

 

Ordinary civil liberties also would mean that no, we wouldn't make women take a pregnancy test before leaving the country, buying cigarettes or whatnot.

 

For your other cases, we already have established law as a guide. A woman abusing drugs while pregnant might indeed be convicted of child abuse, and placed in custody, and perhaps have her child placed in foster care upon birth. That's the same as a woman giving her five-year-old drugs. And wouldn't the result, including being drug free for the rest of her pregnancy, be better for the child and society? One night in a neo-natal ward with drug babies would convince any sane individual that it would.

 

In a similar way, the law makes distinctions and prosecutors have some discretion when a person harms another because of emotional distress and other extenuating circumstances, which may apply to a woman procuring an abortion. There is settled law regarding travelling across jurisdictional boundaries and committing legal acts in one jurisdiction that would be illegal in another. And on and on.

 

In short, most of this jurisprudence is settled. It needs no more hand-wringing than it did when we finally stopped treating African Americans as property. A black man is just a man, and an unborn child is just a child. But I expect, as with that case, that we'll end up with a period where the laws apply somewhat differently to unborn children. That's unfortunate, but probably socially inevitable. First stop the crime. Then work slowly toward full rights.

 

Now, as far as "lethal injection" goes, I confess I'm with the Catholics down the street on that. Respecting life means respecting all life, from cradle to grave. Capital punishment, much as some people deserve it, should not be used in a civilized society that has other options.

 

But I see nothing wrong with a long incarceration of a physician who spends his days making money from (as you say) sticking a vacuum tube into a child's brain.

 

[LongHaul]

Beavah,

         You hit the nail but didn't see it. You just said that the mothers civil rights trump the baby's civil rights. Ordinary civil liberties also would mean that no, we wouldn't make women take a pregnancy test before leaving the country, buying cigarettes or whatnot. We will not violate the mothers right to privacy to guarantee the childs right to life. Why can we invade the mothers right to privacy and the doctor /patient relationship to prevent suspected abortion however. If a doctor has knowledge that a crime is going to be committed that doctor must tell the police. Do we now report pregnancy just like gun shot wounds, after all we have a civil and moral obligation to protect the fetus. You say we can not make a woman take a pregnancy test before buying cigarettes or what not, how about the woman who is eight months pregnant, can we refuse to serve her alcohol? Can we be charged with child endangerment if we do? Can the new born sue any body who served it's mother alcohol while she was pregnant? If the pregnancy shows can she be charged with child endangerment for riding in a car seat belt or no. Are we committed to protecting the life of the unborn or not? Is this a question of protection of life or a question of making ourselves feel better by stopping someone else from doing something we dont like. Because if its protection of life then commit to protect that life regardless of the consequences. It is against the law to serve alcohol to people under 21 years of age in the State of Illinois. If a mother drinks alcohol while pregnant it gets to the fetus. I can test the mothers urine for alcohol and drugs to prevent her from operating a motor vehicle but I cant test for pregnancy to prevent her from harming a child?

      Your against capitol punishment which means youd be incarcerating pregnant mothers for seeking and abortion, doctors for performing abortions and making room for them how? We are already granting early release to rapists, child molesters, and violent criminals. You can use what ever funny spellings and implied accents you want but ordinary jurisprudence just isnt going to cut it.

LongHaul

[Beavah]

We will not violate the mothers right to privacy to guarantee the childs right to life.

 

It's not a privacy issue. It's a search without a warrant issue. Law cannot really be used to protect life; it can only be used to punish those who kill.

 

If there is evidence of a crime, it should be pursued; but in this nation we don't allow "fishing expeditions" to find evidence of a crime that may or may not have occurred.

 

Ordinary jurisprudence.

 

If a doctor has knowledge that a crime is going to be committed that doctor must tell the police.

 

Yes, so if a woman solicits a doctor for an abortion, he should tell the police, in the same way that if a woman solicits a man for murder, he should tell the police. Because soliciting murder for hire is a crime.

 

Are we committed to protecting the life of the unborn or not?

 

We are committed to protecting the lives of (born) children, but we don't test parents to see if they are fit to be raising kids, we don't stop them from smoking around their kids, from having alcohol in their house or giving their kids small amounts at dinner. We do intervene if parents are drug abusers or are giving their kids drugs or intoxicating amounts of alcohol. I imagine the standards for other children would be similar.

 

It's true these days the state has gotten into the protecting life business, with helmet laws and seatbelt laws and the explosion of civil liability cases. Whether that level of state intrusion is a good thing or not I leave to others to debate. Your questions about serving drinks and all that fall into the same category.

 

But regardless of how you feel about such pre-emptive statutes, I trust you agree it's OK to prosecute murderers for their crime after the fact?

 

As to prison space, I assume you're in favor of incarcerating rapists? Drug dealers? Car thieves? You aren't going to stop prosecuting child molesters because the jails are full, are you? Where are you going to put them, eh?

 

That's a different problem we have as a society.

 

[Rooster7]

Beavah,

 

Upon reading Longhaul's comments, I was tempted to join this fray. But I see you defend yourself very well. I do part ways with you on one point. I'm not convinced that the life of a child-molester/killer deserves the same sense of sanctity as the unborn or some other innocent life.

 

[packsaddle]

Beavah, I am employing reductio ad absurdum and pro-life voices in the forum are suddenly silent when confronted with hard questions.

 

My point is that, in anonymity, these persons are at least honest enough to admit their opposition to birth control methods that cause early abortions, especially Plan B. I would welcome such candid opinions here by those who profess to be pro-life. You evidently have rationalized your acceptance by using an 'out-of-sight, out-of-mind' approach. That is, you seem to recognize the fact that these methods, especially Plan B, cause early abortions. I am puzzled as to how anyone can reconcile this fact with their opposition to abortion. Hypocrisies (such as the state will never have the evidence) may be pragmatic but they don't count because there IS a way to limit such early abortions...to outlaw those birth control methods. I am hoping to hear honest support for this from all those pro-life voices who oppose abortion, but they seem to be mute on this problem.

And as you understand, technology will just make it more difficult.

[evmori]

pack,

There is no way you or anyone else can justify eliminating certain kinds of birth control because a minute percentage of women might be aborting fetus' unknowingly. And there is a huge difference between knowingly killing an unborn child and inadvertently killing an unborn child by taking a pill. You can't compare the two.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Ed, I have to admit that I never imagined a rationalization that was based on ignorance. Very creative. However, I don't have to make the comparison between the two because the pro-life people are making that comparison already, as I showed from their website. I would enjoy hearing you make your objections to the pro-life movement.

[Beavah]

 

Upon reading Longhaul's comments, I was tempted to join this fray.

 

Don't let me keep you out of it, Roostah. Da more da merrier.

 

I do part ways with you on one point. I'm not convinced that the life of a child-molester/killer deserves the same sense of sanctity as the unborn or some other innocent life.

 

Did I say that? I didn't mean to. I think I said the child molester/killer deserved to die. But it is a Christian act to spare their God-given life, because so long as they have breath in them they may yet be Saved. Sometimes, though, particularly in small communities and unstable countries, there may be no way for a society to prevent future bad acts without execution. That would be just.

 

----

 

Packsaddle, I think we are confusing drugs (like the pill) and other interventions that operate and are taken primarily to reduce the chance of conception, and drugs (Plan-B, RU-486) that operate and are taken deliberately to result in death after conception.

 

The position that most U.S. pro-Lifer's hold is that the former are acceptable, even though in rare circumstances conception may occur and the drug may hinder implantation . The latter is not acceptable, in that it is taking deliberate action to end life, not prevent it.

 

Yes, I think that's splitting the hair mighty fine; an inevitable result of the technology operating "mighty fine." The Catholic and Orthodox positions, of course, are different, and might satisfy you more. I don't care which you adopt! For while we micro-examine the peculiar details of individual cases, we must not lose sight of the forest. The big picture is that for societies to be healthy and to thrive, they must treasure and protect their children.

 

And to be fair, the logical distinctions the anti-child camp propose are far more absurd... it's not a child as long as its foot hasn't been delivered? A woman can "feel the baby kicking" and we can measure brain activity but it's still OK to poison it with saline? That's just a "private, personal choice?" Once you get out of that glass house, we can consider the subtle questions of life immediately after conception.

 

 

[funscout]

Packsaddle, I am pro-life and I am against any drug that purposely causes abortion. As far as the birth control pill, I don't know of anyone who takes it in the hopes of having an abortion.

 

In your way of thinking, anything that has even a slight chance of causing an unborn child to be aborted should be viewed as wrong in my eyes. In that case, all pregnant women would have to avoid riding in a car, since a car accident could kill the baby. They wouldn't be able to walk around because an accidental fall could kill the baby. So, would they have to spend the whole 9 months lying in bed? That wouldn't work, either, because the mother would become weak and overweight (and could get gestational diabetes) and could die during labor, which could also kill the child.

 

Obviously these scenarios are ridiculous. Even though I don't like the birth control pill's side effects, I am not against women taking it since it is not INTENDED to cause abortions. If I were Catholic, then I would also be against all birth control, but I'm not Catholic.

 

All drugs have side effects, and people have to weigh the benefits and risks to determine whether it is worth it.

 

I was 35 when I was pregnant with my second son. My doctor recommended that I have an amniocentesis (sp?) done, due to my age. I chose not to have one because of the slight risk of miscarriage, and I knew I would not abort the child, no matter what the problems might be. I am not against other women having the procedure done, however, because the intent is not to harm the baby, it's just a miniscule risk.

 

Thanks, Beavah, for bringing us back to the real issue.

[evmori]

Not based on ignorance at all, packsaddle. All medication and medical procedures carry an amount of risk. Some more than others. That's all! If the pro-lifers are arguing taking birth control pills are the same as abortion they are really stretching the envelope. And by doing so, really skewing the issue!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[yellow_hammer]

Packsaddle,

 

I take issue with your argument. What you seem to be saying is that if you are pro-life and not 100% full-tilt no-exceptions pro-life then you are a hypocrite and all of your pro-life arguments are illegitimate.

 

Not so. There are almost as many differences of opinion among pro-lifers as there are between the two sides of abortion. Many people (on both sides) don't have fully formed opinions and are not ready to defend them against someone as fully armed against them as you are.

 

FWIW, I am of the opinion that life begins at conception and ANYTHING done intentionally to harm that life should be illegal.

[Rooster7]

Beavah,

 

Did I say that? I didn't mean to.

 

Perhaps not. Sometimes I oversimplify for my own benefit and understanding.

 

But it is a Christian act to spare their God-given life, because so long as they have breath in them they may yet be Saved.

 

Thats debatable even amongst Christian circles. However, since no man can see and/or understand fully another mans heart, its pointless to debate. I understand and agree with your contention. Still, there are other factors which one should consider such as, Gods warning that one should submit to governmental authorities and be prepared to pay the price if one does not.

 

Romans 13:1-3 reads:

 

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

 

Sometimes, though, particularly in small communities and unstable countries, there may be no way for a society to prevent future bad acts without execution. That would be just.

 

Im not convinced that the above only applies to small communities and unstable countries. Are not the lives of prison guards and other prisoners worth protecting? And, despite contrary claims elsewhere, I see the death penalty as a strong deterrent especially if it was applied consistently for heinous crimes committed by knowing individuals.

 

[DanKroh]

Yellow-hammer writes: "What you seem to be saying is that if you are pro-life and not 100% full-tilt no-exceptions pro-life then you are a hypocrite and all of your pro-life arguments are illegitimate."

 

I think that depends on the basis of one's anti-choice position. If one uses the rationale that as soon as the egg and sperm join, it is life, then yes, anything short of "100% full-tilt no-exceptions" seems inconsistent, and even hypocritical.

 

"Many people (on both sides) don't have fully formed opinions and are not ready to defend them against someone as fully armed against them as you are."

 

I agree. However, I think an opinion that is not "fully formed" is a poor position from which to demand legislation taking the choice away from women. As I said before, anyone who supports legislation controlling reproductive choices should be prepared to have answers to tough questions about the practicalities of how such laws will be enforced, under what circumstances exceptions will be granted, and exactly how far governemtn control over reproductive choices should extend.

[Trevorum]

 

I know this is sorta silly, but ... I've wondered if there is anyone who is strongly against abortion who also believes in astrology. Doesn't astrology claim that the time of one's birth is fundamental? Time of conception is irrelevant. I wonder how they reconcile the opposing beliefs...

 

(OK, now back to your regularly scheduled debate ...)