Abortion is not the issue

[packsaddle]

OGE, I'm glad you have the right to anguish over these hard questions, secure in the fact that you personally will never have to make the decision. I can pose a huge number of conundrums which will just add to your anguish, situations of intense moral indecision. You are unlikely to solve them. But you don't have to.

 

In real life a woman does have the ability to make that decision regardless of what you and the state think. Her ability is merely limited by her economic and knowledge resources. If she has sufficient resources, in this society you have no control whatsoever over what she decides to do. That is the simple reality. If you do want to take that kind of control over her and the responsibility that ought to go with it, then the best way to do that is to limit her resources. Good luck with applying that level of poverty.

 

Alternatively, why not give her the benefit of the wisdom and clarity of your thoughts and vision so that she will decide on her own (her 'choice') to take the action you think is best? If your reasoning is correct and if you can successfully convince others of it, there will be no need for legislation or government coercion one way or the other. If you try and fail, you just need to try harder.

 

To me this is the one best way for the 'pro-life' approach to achieve the greatest success - to make people understand with such clarity that they 'choose' the correct decision on their own. This approach preserves everything you want AND everyone's individual freedom to make the choice in the first place. What is wrong with this?

[OldGreyEagle]

Well, Pack, what you just said is how I started this thread. so its almost like we agree

 

Just a thought and I am sure this is clumsy so we will see how it goes:

 

I am asleep in my bed at night and a terrible crash that shakes house occurs. I hear noise, smell smoke and screams. What occurs is the following, its taken from horror movies so bear with me.

 

A person was walking down the street and a drunk driver careened over the curb and has pinned the person against my garage door. The victim's legs and pelvis are crushed. The only thing keeping the person upright is because he is pinned against the garage door by the car. If the car is moved, the person will bleed out in seconds. This is said to have actually happned. A surgeon comes and surveys the scene and says, if you move the car now, the person will die. If you leave the patient in this positon for 6-9 months, I can operate and set up life support so the person will live until he heals. We move the car and he will be fine. I dont know this guy, its not my fault he was struck by the the car, my life will be altered for the 6-9 months it takes to heal this guy

 

Am I obligated to follow the surgeons suggestion

 

Yeah, I know a reach, over the top even, but what if?

[packsaddle]

OGE, you're just a little scary at times.

OK, the only question mark I see is "what if?" So what if? It's not my car, my bed, or my house. I can speculate about what I would do if I was in this situation but I really don't KNOW what I'd do until that became my reality. So short of that, I'd rely on you and the surgeon to make the best decision.

How can I, a person who has less knowledge about this than either you or the surgeon, make a better decision than the two of you? Do you think I, a person with no responsibility whatsoever in this situation, should be able to force you to act one way or the other?

[Eagledad]

In some states, an abortion is the only surgical procedure an under aged youth can have performed without a parents permission. Boys can't even get a cavity filled with a parents permission.

 

Sadly it's not really about a woman's control over her body. .

 

Barry

[Nike]

A few more things for the hopper:

 

I learned in college biology that for every pregnancy that carries to term, 6 conceptions have failed to flourish.

 

Humans have been seeking to control fertility since they could reason. Look up herbs for birth control or to induce miscarriage. Are they the most successful herbal remedies? Probably not, but they point to a long history of humans desiring abortion.

 

And, what about abortions that really and truly are medically necessary--it's really the fetus or the woman, and the woman will not survive to viability?

 

In an accident scenario the doctor can save the mother or the almost viable baby, but not both. Who gets to choose? Which one should the chooser choose? Is one choice more moral or ethical than the other?

 

 

[WasE61]

For the record, my opinion on abortion is irrelevant to everyone except me.

 

But I'll pose the question...

 

Is it better to have an abortion, or to have another unwanted, unloved, starving child on the the planet.

 

 

[Brewmeister]

And yet everyone is avoiding my question...

 

At what point is a human life worth protecting?

[WasE61]

Beats me ... I'm not God, nor have I read any of his works that have not been interpreted for socio-political gain by man.... and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Eagledad]

>>Is it better to have an abortion, or to have another unwanted, unloved, starving child on the the planet.

[Beavah]

Any date you pick other than conception will be arbitrary.

 

Yah, perhaps. Though as packsaddle says, even conception is somewhat arbitrary, eh? I know several sets of identical twins. Clearly their individual lives didn't start exactly at conception. Angels dancin' on pins philosophical questions aside, I reckon that yeh can define da legal start of life da same way yeh define legal death, eh? By heartbeat or brain activity. Those are relatively straightforward. They'd allow a brief window for abortions, sure, but I reckon that's da period when da proper role of others is to try to convince 'em to choose otherwise.

 

So I reckon what we're really talkin' about is when da state should have an interest in the matter, eh? Da state could have an interest in when it s should pay or force others to pay for da procedure. Da state could also have an interest in when folks feel da mother or da physician should be punished for their actions, as an example for others or to prevent repeated actions.

 

This is why Roe v. Wade was such a phenomenally poor decision. These sorts of questions would have been argued out gradually among da population and da several states. It would have been a long process of people tryin' to convince each other, and comin' to consensus. Some bringin' up important and hard cases like rape and when necessary to save da life of da mother. Others bringin' up other important cases like folks who want to terminate just because they don't like girls or (if homosexuality truly is genetic) they don't want a gay. Da laws would have adjusted gradually and thoughtfully, through discussion and debate.

 

Instead we had 9 old coots try to play Solomon and end da debate before it got started. Da result was that they instantly polarized da nation, and prevented da sort of long, thoughtful dialog and gradual change that would have allowed us as a national group of people to come together on this. It did nuthin' but harm.

 

In da end, though, da proper Christian thing is never to rely on the state to do the work that we are called to do ourselves, eh? Yeh can't rely on da state for charity when we are each called to give alms and help our neighbor. And yeh can't rely on da state to do the work of convincin' promiscuous teens or folks who are scared or da selfish who don't want to change their lifestyle that da life of a child, however inconvenient or "unwanted", is a precious thing.

 

There are lots of unwanted elderly. There are lots of lonely folks who may be unloved. There are lots of people of all ages who are hungry or starving. I wouldn't want to kill any of 'em.

 

Beavah