A Christian Nation?

[GernBlansten]

Ed, isn't it still killing an innocent life with aborting the ectopic or deformed fetus? Did you support removing the feeding tube from Terry Schiavo? I agree with you on the rape or incest issue. Send them to adoption, if anyone would take them.

 

Isn't it ironic that we would execute people because they don't respect life like we do.

 

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had the technology to implant at birth in every American citizen a valve to prevent pregnancy. To be fair, lets just install this valve in males. The keys to the valve would be held by the state. They would determine when and if you could procreate. You would have to demonstrate a committed relationship (marriage), financial means to raise the child (job) and a clear criminal record (good citizen). After submitting your application, a board of review would be held to determine your fitness to parent. If they determine you are qualified, the valve is opened until pregnancy is obtained. After successful fertilization, the valve is closed until the next BOR. This would be a 100% solution to unwanted pregnancy, single mom's, incest/rape impregnation and ultimately all abortions. It would also allow every American to procreate as they see fit as long as they follow the guidelines of the state. Depending on conditions, the state could determine that population growth is high and reduce the birth rate by denying applications. In regions where growth is wanted or necessary, applications would be liberally granted.

[evmori]

Yes Gern it is but there is another life in peril at the same time. To me it's not the same as abortion.

 

No it wouldn't be wonderful to have such a valve regardless of who controls it! It would be a little to Orwellian to me!

 

Thanks for clearing my ectopic misunderstanding up, Beavah!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

[GernBlansten]

No it wouldn't be wonderful to have such a valve regardless of who controls it! It would be a little to Orwellian to me!

 

You're right Ed. I don't think the state should be allowed to make reproductive decisions for us.

 

How about deformed fetus? Ones who may be viable, but would live a miserable or limited existance, especially if the parents are not capable of tending to it. Also, what about the case of a healthy fetus being carried by a frail mother where continuing the pregnancy risks the life of the mother. Can that one end if the mother requests to save her own life? Would she be charged with murder or pre-meditated manslaughter?

[OldGreyEagle]

I am sure many of you have seen this before, but I do think its relevant,

 

If you knew a woman who is pregnant and who has 8 kids already -- three who are deaf, two who are blind, one mentally retarded -- and she also has syphilis, the father is an alcoholic who will beat the child. Both mother and father have physical and mental disabilities, would you recommend that she have an abortion?

 

If so, Beethoven would never have been born

 

 

Living morals and values is never easy. In the case of the ectopic pregnancy I really struggle. An ectopic pregnancy is when a fertilzied egg implants itself in the lining of the fallopian tube. This is the tube that conects the ovary to the uterus. Now, the uterus is designed to stretch (sic!) the fallopian tube is not. As the fertilized egg starts to develop, it grows, quickly beginning to stretch the fallopian tube beyond its limits and then the issue becomes do we do a D&C (Dilatation and Curettage)to remove the developing child or do we let it continue to grow eventually rupturing the fallopian tube, most assuredly causing internal bleeding that will lead to the death of both mother and child. I already have said that the destruction of a fertilized egg is wrong so what do I tell a woman who is diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy? Sorry kid, you are going to die because I think its wrong for you to have the D&C that will save your life and terminate the child whose development will cost you your life and then his own? I know what I beleive but can't reconcile it to this situation. I have also stated in past threads that I beleive capital punishement is not consistent with a society that says it values human life. Then again, what about warfare? To be 100% consistent I would have to say the US should totally disarm and then again I have said I dont want the US to have the second best military force, I want us to be number one which means I have to support the killing of others which I just said I cant support, but self defense is clearly OK but then again if it causes death where am I?

 

When I was a kid, I couldnt wait to be an adult and think adult thoughts, now I think of the old cliche, becareful of what you wish, you might just get it.

[packsaddle]

I think the ectopic problem has been made clear enough and I am glad to see the struggle to resolve it. It SHOULD be a struggle because there is no resolution.

OGE, yes I've heard that before. Now share with us your clear thinking on how to resolve these problems.

 

As for the question of birth control, I want to inform Ed that with the IUD and the 'pill', eggs are released and can be fertilized. There is a probability that some are, given the frequency of ovulation and depending on the frequency of intercourse. This new human is then either prevented from implantation by the birth control measure or else it implants and is later rejected because of the same birth control measure. This effectively kills a new human life and as has been observed, the Catholic church is consistent in their approach.

 

If a woman has been fully informed as to the way the birth control measure works, she will know this happens. I know that there are some people who would rather keep women ignorant but this is beside the point. The difference is that if the birth control measure works, no one will ever know if the egg is fertilized nor if it has been aborted. It is a private matter for the woman and I wonder how many would, as suggested, insert the government into her life for this decision. I do know that some people would.

 

Now to add the problem of in-vivo fertilization: All those frozen humans (and I'm not talking about Presbyterians here ) that are not used during the procedure. Every frozen embryo theoretically could become an adult human. We have already decided that they can't be used to do research that might save human life. Instead, they are eventually discarded (murdered, to use the pro-life terminology). This is also premeditated. So, do we ban in-vitro fertilization and do we execute the murderers? I'm still waiting.

 

Finally, if a woman with the means takes a trip to another state or country to have an abortion, is she guilty of murder? What do you do about that? Or do we just execute the poor women? Waiting.

[evmori]

Now you a stretching this way out of shape.

 

Those eggs used in invetro are not lives until they are planted in the women. So life is not ended, it isn't given a chance to start.

 

No she is not guilty of murder. The doctor who performs the abortion is. She is an accessory.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

 

[LongHaul]

       As a society we still must decide when life begins as applicable under the law. If it is at conception then IUDs and the pill are murder just as clearly as partial birth abortions, they just dont look as bad. No one has touched the concept of how we protect the fetus from Mom drinking, smoking, using drugs, or taking risks that might endanger the fetus. Is it life or not? Is it entitled to protection under the law or not?

           Every time I hear someone say She can put it up for adoption I have to think about my wife. When my wife became pregnant with our first child she changed. I dont think anyone will argue with the notion that using drugs changes ones personality and alters the way a person interacts with others. Pregnancy does the same thing because the hormonal balance changes. The long and short of it is that I never got the woman I married back again. The pregnancy caused hemorrhoids which cause my wife considerable pain, it put a strain on her back which resulted in a herniated disc, again pain. My point here is that we chose to do this, and even chose to do it a second time. The woman who was raped had no choice. She was violated physically and emotionally. Now we would have her give up her personality and physical health because we value LIFE. As long as you are breathing its still life. My mother died of ovarian cancer. It was slow and painful. The last six months were spent in morphine therapy, gagging on the feeding tube and having waste pumped from her stomach because her GI tract had shut down. LIFE? I see a good deal of this debate being founded on the premise that we are sinners and must suffer to atone for something. Ending LIFE when it has stopped being a life is only for every other life form on this planet not us. We would never subject any other living thing to the torments and misery we subject humans to to preserve LIFE.

[packsaddle]

Ed, I am stretching nothing. If life begins at conception then those diploid cells are human life. Nothing less. If you have decided that it doesn't count until implantation, then you have set YOUR line at that point. I have detected that others in the pro-life camp feel differently. But even with your arbitrary line the IUD and the 'pill' are still an unanswered problem. LongHaul has offered some painful personal perspective on this and I thank him for that. Ed, I do praise your willingness to enter the dialogue where others won't. Again, I respect that even if I disagree. I am still waiting for the other voices that frequent these topics...for their solutions. Waiting.

[evmori]

And every time I hear he/she can be put up for adoption I think of myself. I am adopted. My mother chose to not abort me. She could have. But she didn't. And even though I don't know who she is I thank her every day of my life.

 

Birth control is not the same as abortion. Not even close. Effective birth control helps prevent abortion. And the best birth control is not having sex until you are ready to accept the consequences of your actions. Rape & incest not included.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

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. The government did not 'force' her to have the baby (you). Other people did not remove her choice and her responsibility. She made the decision that she thought was best for her and that, in my view, is exactly what should happen.

 

As for birth control, what I have described is accurate. Unless I misinterpret what you have written, you believe that life begins at some time AFTER conception, I'm just not sure when that is for you. I suggest that many in the pro-life side do not agree, nor does the Catholic church. Your belief is YOURS as is the arbitrary line that you have 'chosen'. If it works for you, that is fine.

But that, again, is my point. You do have the ability to think about this and make your personal choice. Government didn't do this for you nor did it limit your ability. I merely think women should have the same freedom...to choose.

[evmori]

I agree women should have a choice. The choice (rape & incest excluded) is to have sex or not have sex. If the choice is to have sex then the woman must be able to deal with the consequences of that choice. One of those consequences could be a child. If she isn't willing to or unable to accept the consequences of her actions then her choice should be to not have sex. My mother accepted the consequences of her actions.

 

For me, life begins at conception. There might be some birth controls that stop this life after conception but that is still in no way the same as abortion. Most women have an abortion because having a baby will interfere with their plans. An inconvenience if you will. That is a horrendous reason to end a life. And in my opinion, an unacceptable reason.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

[packsaddle]

Ed, don't you think there is an element of convenience in the decision to use birth control? Where do you draw the line if not at conception?

And why isn't it the same if the life is ended?

[GernBlansten]

Pack, you have some good points. I never considered birth control methods that work after conception like the IUD(mechanical). Not sure about the pill (hormonal). Those methods pollute the uterus to a point that implantation of the fertilized egg is impossible. I can understand now that those methods of birth control are no less an abortion than a D+C procedure if you accept conception as the point of life. But correct me if I'm wrong, don't Catholics consider even barrier methods like condoms, vasectomies, spermicides and diaphragms against their faith? If that's the case, then their position against birth control is not based on killing life, but preventing it.

[DanKroh]

Packsaddle, unless Ed was born after 1973 (which I think he mentioned that his age is a bit older than that), his mother probably DIDN'T have a choice, unless she wanted to risk possible death from a back-alley abortion procedure.

 

Ed, I'm so glad that you can look into the hearts of all the women out there and determine that they are having abortions because of "convenience". Every woman I have ever counseled has characterized their decision as agonizing and heartbreaking, regardless of which way they chose. To trivialize the difficulty of making that decision does a grave injustice to women.

 

To say that women who don't want to "accept the consequences" shouldn't have sex is equally trivializing of a complex situation as a matter of responsibility. It smacks of an attitude that women who have sex should be "punished". Many women have taken responsiblity by using birth control, which unfortunately is not 100% effective. Many women who have abortions are married women, whose pregnancies have resulted from failed birth control. So they should not be having sex? If the couple already have children and choose adoption instead of abortion, how do they explain to their existing children that they are giving up their brother/sister?

 

I have seen the adoption issue from many sides. My good friends gave up a child for adoption (who resulted from failed birth control at the start of their marriage), and she tried to returned to their lives when she reached 18, and basically harrassed them because she felt they should "pay" for giving her up. I have another set of friends who have tried to adopt, but had the mother change her mind after they had the baby for 3 months, and he was taken away from them. Adoption is not a simple answer, despite what the anti-choice faction would like us to think.

 

I have also had personal experiences that have challenged my views on abortion. When my spouse and I lost twins at 19 weeks due to unstoppable preterm labor, I held my son and daughter as they died. So I understand the emotional response that seeing a fetus that is recognizable as a baby evokes, at a very personal level. That is why I personally oppose abortions after the first trimester, but I can think of many exceptions to that stance, which is why I am unwilling to support legislating that choice for others.

 

I used to personally oppose abortion at all, until we chose to terminate a second set of twins in the first trimester for completely medical reasons. And while this case would fall under the exemption that many anti-choice proponents are willing to give of saving the life of the mother, that did not make the decision any easier. So I find extremely distasteful any attempt to trivialize such as decision as a matter of "convenience".

 

Someone suggested that anyone who supports a pro-choice stance should first watch a late-term abortion procedure. I would likewise say that anyone who supports an anti-choice position should have to listen to the stories of women (and couples) who have made this most difficult decision.

 

For myself, what it comes down to is that there are just too many extenuating circumstances for me to support sweeping legislation about abortion. As I said before, I would much rather see improvements in birth control, sex education, and adoption services that would reduce the circumstances under which a woman would seek an abortion.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[evmori]

It smacks of an attitude that women who have sex should be "punished".

 

In your opinion. Not mine. Consequences and punishment are not always the same.

 

Many women have taken responsibility by using birth control, which unfortunately is not 100% effective. Many women who have abortions are married women, whose pregnancies have resulted from failed birth control. So they should not be having sex?

 

Again, they knew what could possibly happen. If they aren't ready to accept the responsibilities for their actions then maybe they shouldn't be having sex. What would be a reason for a married woman to have an abortion?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 peter 4:10