ScottyRo

Just in case you haven\'t heard...

On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 233-194 in favor of the Marriage Protection Act (MPA) which would take away from activist federal judges the power to declare the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. DOMA says that no state has to accept another state’s marriage laws which legalize homosexual marriage. DOMA was passed overwhelmingly in 1996 by both the House and Senate and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton.

WhoDat

Scotty, I do not think that the government should be banned from making any law that may have religious signifigance - or maybe better put, if you think killing is wrong b/c it\'s one of the ten commandments, that\'s OK. Why? B/c the same argument can be made without God.

Here\'s what I see on the abortion issue:

I see one side saying, we don\'t know when life begins, but our church tells us it is wrong. It should be banned. Some, and from what I\'ve seen this number is very small, but some people, like you, say, \"I don\'t know either way on abortion and since it may be wrong we should deem it wrong.\"

The opposite side says, \"I don\'t know one way or the other on abortion, and since it cannot be decided outright, I am happy to allow it to remain a personal decision.\"

Now, I don\'t mean to be inflamatory, but one of these seems in the spirit of individual freedom, and the other seems religiously backed, if not entirely based.

I mean, I\'m not sure whether or not my microwave is giving me and my family members cancer. Should we outlaw that b/c it MAY give us cancer?

In any case, there is one major point that the pro-lifers seem to miss. Many claim that the child should be given a chance. What chance would these children have being born into situations where they are unwanted? Further, should abortion be outlawed in the US, do you think that it would actually stop? It won\'t, it will simply put more women at risk, as they have to perform procedures \"under ground\" or fly to Mexico or wherever to get the procedures done. A law banning abortion won\'t stop abortion, it will put more people at risk though, and cause even more suffering for the women and families who have them.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

ScottyRo

I don\'t think your observations about religious people are inflamatory, it\'s just wrong.

I see some religious people thinking they way you say above. But there are others who know that just because they can\'t tell you the moment the combination of sperm and egg becomes a life doesn\'t mean that it\'s not so early on as to be irrelevant. (I was just about to go into my reasons for why it\'s true, but we won\'t agree or settle it so why bother at this point). It seems clear enough to me that by the time the woman knows she is pregnant, it is a life.

The opposite also has people that think as you say above - that it is about freedom. But there are also people that want it to be legal just in case they ever need it to be. They\'ll be as sexually irresponsible as they want to be and kill any child they might create in the process.

Just because the congregation is told they should not be in favor of something doesn\'t mean that they blindly follow. There are plenty of intellegent people who can figure these things out for themselves that also believe in God and go to church.
Maybe. But is the microwave a life or just a mass of cells?

Talk about weak links in the argument. So you\'re saying that they\'re better off not having been born. I suppose since they\'re born into tough situations, there\'s no chance that any good can come from them or their lives. Certainly none of them will grow up to win the superbowl for the Saints.

Ahh, the old \"we can\'t stop it so we might as well make it legal\" argument. Not your proudest moment here either. How about these: Drugs? Prostitution? Illegal immigration? Don\'t all of these laws drive people underground and put them at risk simply because they\'d rather take the risk than abide by the law?

WhoDat

Yes, they do, and I am in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution, for the record. Want to find the safest prostitute in America? Go to Vegas, where it is legal. The UK has programs where addicts can go to hospitals and slowly be weened off a drug. The hospital will administer a clean, safe dose of the drug and monitor the user. They get stepped off the program. Those are both MUCH BETTER situations than what we have here now, yes.


In any case, I\'m quite sure you understand now. Here\'s the problem:

Well it\'s not CLEAR to ME that is true. So who is right? Both of us, or neither of us, however you want to put it. In that case what do you do? There is no right or wrong. I say take power from the state and leave it where I think it belongs, in the hands of the people to make their own decisions. You think it should be a federal issue to protect the potential life. Neither of us is right, or wrong. I rest happy knowing that right now, the law supports my view.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

ScottyRo

So, hypothetically, if it was proven to be life at implantation would that change your thinking to not allowing the procedure?

You said in an earlier post that breathing and a heartbeat are the requirements for life. Is there anything else?

WhoDat

Not waking into that trap!

Let me put it to you this way: I have seven doctors in my family. If they cannot agree and tell me when life actually begins, if the entire medical profession can\'t answer that question, then I am smart enough to know that I am not smart enough to answer it myself.

I can tell you that I FEEL that a month old embryo/fetus bears more resemblance to a cyst than a human being. Right now, without further proof, I think it is the mother\'s choice.

Here\'s another key difference. Let\'s assume for a moment that the medical industry came together and supported a view that life begins at \"implantation\". Would I change my view? Given good evidence and the respected opinions of experts, yes. I would.

Now consider the opposite. If the medical industry united to say that a child is not alive until it is born, would you change your view? Would other pro-lifers? I doubt it.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

ScottyRo

You may be right that it looks like a cyst at that stage, but it has a heartbeat and a spinal column at that time too. I know the cyst doesn\'t have its very own heartbeat.

You could gather all the scientists and doctors together and debate this for eternity and never come to a conclusion. But I guarantee that if only as much of a person as a recently implanted baby were discovered on some other planet, they\'d generally agree that they found evidence of human life on that other planet. It is taken for granted as being such on Earth because it is so plentiful.

Grrlscout

Er, I\'m new to this board, and have been scrolling through the topics to check it out. Just thought I\'d add my two cents here while I wait for the season to start in earnest...

I think what you\'re all missing is the idea of human dignity. It spans both the abortion and euthanasia arguments, and applies equally to both. I am unabashedly pro-choice, as I am pro-euthanasia, for many of the same reasons. It boils down to control over your own body. A woman, as a human being, shouldn\'t be reduced to being an unwilling incubator, any more than a terminal patient should be reduced to being a guinea pig or the victim of a risk management policy by a hospital. Are you saying that somehow a pregnant woman, no matter what stage of pregnancy she is in, is somehow in some different category of humanity than she would be otherwise? In other words, because she is pregnant, she loses her ability and right to make decisions about both herself and the fetus she carries, and in many ways, her own destiny as well? At what point does she regain the integrity of her rights as a person?

It\'s a sad situation, no doubt about it. But the reality is that there are some women out there who should never be mothers, especially if they aren\'t going into it willingly. I don\'t think it does the sum of human dignity any good to have a child raised by a mother who sees its existence as ruining hers. I\'ve heard enough stories about abuse and neglect from friends and family members who work in hospitals to make me strongly convinced that no child should be dealt that particular hand.

Carrying a pregnancy to term isn\'t as easy as a lot of the \"adoption option\" advocates want to pretend it is. I knew a girl who was pregnant in high school - twas a big shock and scandal in my home town, even in the 80\'s. When her father found out, he beat her and kicked her out of the house - 16, pregnant, no job, while pregnant she had no prospects of getting one. She wound up hundreds of miles away at a shelter for teenage mothers, and gave her child up for adoption. My understanding was that there were problems finding a family interested in adopting her child due to its race (not all races are equally adoptable - she is Filipina, the father is white) and the health problems it had due to having a very young mother. She moved back home and had to try and get her life back into gear - go back and finish school, try to move on - with her parents still not supporting or speaking to her. Do you think it would be right or advisable to remove the option of legal, safe abortion for that girl if she\'d chosen that route?

The argument over choice seems to be muddied with the morality of abortion. Personally, I feel that it\'s wrong to create an environment where a woman is forced (by law or coersion) to carry a pregnancy to term when she clearly is in no position to raise a child. I think y\'all have beaten the \"legal does not always mean morally correct\" view to death - there is often a gap between the two. Even in Nevada, you have a personal moral choice to make about prostitution, the legality aside. Oftentimes, women who seek abortion do so not because they really want to, but because they are forced to by circumstance or medical reasons. Having an abortion isn\'t exactly a skip through the park. You don\'t flip a coin and decide to have an abortion one afternoon because there\'s nothing on TV - it isn\'t that simple a decision. Put it this way - if a married couple in their third pregnancy was told that the fetus likely had significant health issues via amnio, would you force them to carry the child to term? To prove what point? At what cost, to them, to their family, to that child?

Life is like a mirror. Smile and it will smile back at you.

CheramieIII

Hey Girlscout, you damn sure don\'t talk like one and don\'t get too bent out of shape about some of the debates on our board. Everyone here is very passionate and has to be, we are all Saint\'s Fans.

I don\'t believe in abortion, but that is my personal belief. I do believe a person has the right to kill themself, if they wish when they are of legal age. My separation on both of these issues is, I believe the child doesn\'t have a choice and I believe it is a child at the time of conception.

Only my opinion and I guess that makes me no demcrate.

Golf and sex are about the only things you can enjoy without being good at them.
Jimmy Demaret

ScottyRo

First off, welcome to the boards Grrlscout. Second, your post was very well though out and nicely written. I disagree with your sentiment and logic, but still, well done. I hope you post on some Saints issues comments as thoroughly worked through as this one.

I\'m going to argue my points from the basis that the unborn child is a life at conception since none of your arguments seem to rely on the allegation that it is not.

No doubt that the woman\'s body is greatly effected here, but the control is also over another individual\'s body as well. You\'ll never hear me say that pregnancy is easy, but does that difficulty demand the death of the unborn? Not in most people\'s minds since they do carry full term.

A child, as an unborn human being, shouldn\'t be reduced to a pile of medical waste just because its life may cause the unwilling parent difficulty.

Yes. While pregant, she is exceptionally changed from an individual human being to a human being that is the sole life support system for another. Obviously, this is a vastly different existence for her than the life she\'ll lead otherwise.

Yes, she loses the right to make decisions for herself and the fetus in many situations. The right to make decisions even for yourself when not pregnant is not absolute. You can test this by calling the police and making a serious threat to kill yourself. You\'ll find that your ability to commit suicide will be severely curtailed by the government. You could accomplish it by keeping it a secret but that doesn\'t mean you had the right to do it.

She\'ll regain her rights as an individual person when she delivers the child or the pregnancy naturally aborts.

Safe? It is deadly to one and injurious many times for the other. The rest of the paragraph that preceded the above quote is tragic. However, consider all the people that made mistakes in that scenario. The dad. The boyfriend. The pregnant girl. The peeple who allowed prejudices to affect their decisions about adopting a child. At what point do all of these bad decisions reasonably condemn the only innocent party involved to death?

Also, if the child is never adopted and had to live a sad life, not even with foster parents, but always in an orphan center, that is still preferable to death. It cannot be truthfully stated that one would have been better off having never been born.

Yes, they should carry the child to prove the point that life, especially all human life, is precious. You ask about the costs to the parents and family. I have to say it\'s apparent that you don\'t know any families that have children born with these difficulties. Certainly, it is a dificult thing to handle, but you\'re on the cusp of saying here that even without the test if the child is born with these difficulties the parents should be allowed to kill it then to avoid the challenges of raising this child.

What is the cost to the child? I have a good friend that was born with spina bifida. I have only known her for about 3 years (she is now 25), but I do know that she has struggled her entire life with the difficulties brought on by her problems. In fact, this entire week she has been in the hospital with these problems.

I can\'t speak for her entirely, but I think I know her well enough to say that she is much happier simply being alive than the alternative. I\'m equally sure she would say that she\'d accept these struggles and more again in order to live.

You are one who seems to ignore that abortion is not some medical procedure to rid the female\'s body of some tumor or cancer. The abortion is the killing of a human. It deprives the child of something I\'d bet you hold as the most precious thing you have...life. Where is the human dignity in that?

What I am coming to understand about pro-abortionists is that it seems, simply, that your priorites are out of line. I don\'t mean to sound condescending here, but I think, if you were asked to rank the importance of life against things such as choice issues and sickness issues, you\'d always rank life first in any other discussion except abortion.

Would you fight to save the habitat of some extinction-threatened species? Would you call the humane society on a neighbor who shot or severely beat his dog because it p\'d on the floor? Yet you won\'t back the protection of unborn children.