I didn't run this post through spell-checker or proof it much so look out!
Thanks, guys. Of course Congress could amend the constitution. I had a brain cramp there.
Jon, wasn't it precisely an advancement in science that got the gov. out of a woman't body in the first place? All that talk about when a fetus is viable didn't affect the court's decision at all? Of course it did.
I think the issue for Christians (and anyone else for that matter, because it is, after all, The Issue) is not what a woman should be allowed or disallowed to do with her body, (does the law permit us to do anything we want with our bodies?) but rather, whether or not it is a good idea to terminate normal, healthy pregnancies at will. All that talk about "viability" is a load of bunk. Be sure that there are those who believe that a woman should not only be allowed to terminate a pregnancy if she wants, but she should also be able to kill any of her children who are too burdensome for her to care for. Following the line of reasoning of abortion-rights folks, I cannot see, try as I have, how that idea is assailable. What is the real difference between an unborn child and a (very young) born one? The unborn are an easy target, probably the easiest target when we line up all the things in life the impede personal gain, ambition, and the "pursuit of happines". Remember, we didn't enslave blacks or push Native Americans out of the way because those peoples were unintelligent or genetically inferior, we did it because they were militarily weak, and, furthermore, in the case of blacks, economically valuable.Don't let us get too enamored with the culture-talk about who has rights and who doesn't; let us think about what we are doing when we make killing human beings (and that is what it is, no play to base emotions intended, I promise) legal. Of course, I mean for now, killing this particular class of human beings in this manner. I realize that to protect the unborn we will have to assign rights to them, but won't that mean simply giving them back the rights we took away? Were the unborn protected prior to 1973 or weren't they? If so, how?
Kelly, you say that abortion is "sinful" but that a government may permit them. That sounds like a resignation and that is O.K. if your government is a dictatorship or a fascist regime where there is little one can do to effect change, but is that all one can do here? Jon points out that our time might be better served helping those who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy on their hands. Nonsense. We might as well say that instead of outlawing thievery we would do better to simply give the poor thieves the things they want. This argument about how things will be worse because it will lead to unsafe abortions continues to leave me stupefied, mouth agape and choking on my own spittle. I ask you, "worse for whom?" Let me make a confession to you. If our great unicameral passed a law tomorrow which permitted the free trade of narcotics (i.e., only the very Best Weed, heroin and cocaine) I could almost guarantee you that I wouldn't make it back to UNL Law come fall because I'd be too busy snorting, shooting and smoking, in addition to fighting with my wife, my kids, watching my life fall apart while, rest assured, enjoying much of it, because, don't let anyone fool you, it's fun to get high! Of course, that isn't going to happen because no such permission is on the horizon for us. But what about all those poor junkies and coke-heads out there who risk their lives dealing with, well, dealers? Is that fair? Why not let the pharmaceutical companies sell them the stuff . . . safe, clean, available at Wal-Mart? (I am salivating at the very thought of such a thing!)
My point is that abortion is bad for society. We can see its effects today and will continue to see it in years to come so long as things remain status quo. It promotes, even encourages promiscuity (how could it not?) it undermines monogamy, it destroys families, and, most importantly, it destroys a human's life.
I gotta go as I am currently working on a "Very Best of Rush" compilation for my brother (and anyone else interested) complete with cover art. So far I have whittled eighteen studio and two live discs down to five Cds.
Thanks, guys. Of course Congress could amend the constitution. I had a brain cramp there.
Jon, wasn't it precisely an advancement in science that got the gov. out of a woman't body in the first place? All that talk about when a fetus is viable didn't affect the court's decision at all? Of course it did.
I think the issue for Christians (and anyone else for that matter, because it is, after all, The Issue) is not what a woman should be allowed or disallowed to do with her body, (does the law permit us to do anything we want with our bodies?) but rather, whether or not it is a good idea to terminate normal, healthy pregnancies at will. All that talk about "viability" is a load of bunk. Be sure that there are those who believe that a woman should not only be allowed to terminate a pregnancy if she wants, but she should also be able to kill any of her children who are too burdensome for her to care for. Following the line of reasoning of abortion-rights folks, I cannot see, try as I have, how that idea is assailable. What is the real difference between an unborn child and a (very young) born one? The unborn are an easy target, probably the easiest target when we line up all the things in life the impede personal gain, ambition, and the "pursuit of happines". Remember, we didn't enslave blacks or push Native Americans out of the way because those peoples were unintelligent or genetically inferior, we did it because they were militarily weak, and, furthermore, in the case of blacks, economically valuable.Don't let us get too enamored with the culture-talk about who has rights and who doesn't; let us think about what we are doing when we make killing human beings (and that is what it is, no play to base emotions intended, I promise) legal. Of course, I mean for now, killing this particular class of human beings in this manner. I realize that to protect the unborn we will have to assign rights to them, but won't that mean simply giving them back the rights we took away? Were the unborn protected prior to 1973 or weren't they? If so, how?
Kelly, you say that abortion is "sinful" but that a government may permit them. That sounds like a resignation and that is O.K. if your government is a dictatorship or a fascist regime where there is little one can do to effect change, but is that all one can do here? Jon points out that our time might be better served helping those who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy on their hands. Nonsense. We might as well say that instead of outlawing thievery we would do better to simply give the poor thieves the things they want. This argument about how things will be worse because it will lead to unsafe abortions continues to leave me stupefied, mouth agape and choking on my own spittle. I ask you, "worse for whom?" Let me make a confession to you. If our great unicameral passed a law tomorrow which permitted the free trade of narcotics (i.e., only the very Best Weed, heroin and cocaine) I could almost guarantee you that I wouldn't make it back to UNL Law come fall because I'd be too busy snorting, shooting and smoking, in addition to fighting with my wife, my kids, watching my life fall apart while, rest assured, enjoying much of it, because, don't let anyone fool you, it's fun to get high! Of course, that isn't going to happen because no such permission is on the horizon for us. But what about all those poor junkies and coke-heads out there who risk their lives dealing with, well, dealers? Is that fair? Why not let the pharmaceutical companies sell them the stuff . . . safe, clean, available at Wal-Mart? (I am salivating at the very thought of such a thing!)
My point is that abortion is bad for society. We can see its effects today and will continue to see it in years to come so long as things remain status quo. It promotes, even encourages promiscuity (how could it not?) it undermines monogamy, it destroys families, and, most importantly, it destroys a human's life.
I gotta go as I am currently working on a "Very Best of Rush" compilation for my brother (and anyone else interested) complete with cover art. So far I have whittled eighteen studio and two live discs down to five Cds.
6 Comments:
Joh,
I thought about your remarks some more and realized that I may have misconstrued a point of yours; that it is silly to throw money at a problem in the form of supporting a lobby or a cause while ignoring our flesh and blood neighbors. You are right on there. It's sort of like loving my neighbor across the sea (who I have never met) while despising the guy I see at work everyday. What I am curious about, however, is what is the "good idea" behind legalized abortion?
There is no "good idea," and I think the argument that illegalizing it would cause "unsafe" abortions is retarded for the same reasons that you do. But at the same time, theologically speaking, government has the right to authorize the taking of a life (read: death penalty and war). I realize that abortion is not in the same category as those two, but the fact remains that there is no distinction in Christian theology of which I am aware.
Oh yes, at the same time that I say it is within government's power, I agree with Jon that it seems to be a state's rights issue (like the death penalty) and that people should petition government to do what they think is right (i.e. illegalizing abortion).
“Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like” – GKC
Great job on the spelling, I’m amazed you did that without a spell check! I usually don’t like to get involved in this debate because I think as a young childless male anything I say may come off as precocious or pretentious. But this is a good debate and one worth having. However, I think this is a touchy subject for anyone and we all like to debate here, so I would like to reserve all personal judgments about my character because of this argument until we have a chance to debate it in person.
Several things in your latest post I do not disagree with at all. A point that we are missing in our debate is that a reversal of Roe v. Wade wouldn’t make abortions illegal it would only allow the states to decide if they want abortions to be legal. Therefore, abortion would be legal probably in all the blue states, but illegal in all the red states and you would have daughters traveling to blue states to get a procedure that would be illegal to perform in a red state. Doesn’t solve the problem.
You mention several areas of discontent so I’ll do my best to address them by using a list.
1. The advancement of science as being a catalyst for the courts decision. Of course it was part of the courts decision I was wrong in saying otherwise, but I don’t believe it is such a force in the courts decision as to warrant reversal solely because of the advancement of scientific equipment or knowledge balanced against the rights of women. Further, it’s not really a scientific argument, but more of a when is the fetus a human being and therefore has rights argument. The opinion suggests that prior to 1860 many countries and states outlawed “after quickening” abortions, but allowed abortions prior to quickening. This might be a possible compromise that may end up being the only way to avoid another civil war in this country. It’s really a great opinion, I’ve never read it before and I thought it was really carefully considered and balanced. While I morally disagree with the outcome, I understand civilly why they had to hold the way they did. Roe v. Wade.
2. The issue for Christians. – Your comment suggests that we agree.
3. Snowball argument of abortion rights folks. Once the child leaves the mother it has all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the argument that we should also kill children who are too burdensome to take care of is unsound.
4. What is the real difference between an unborn child and a (very young) born one? – All the difference legally in the world (from what I know presently). I remember reading a case in CrimLaw about a man who was charged with murder for intentionally hitting his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach causing a miscarriage. The question was whether this constituted murder under the statute. The court reasoned that the statutes forbade killing of a “human being” and that the fetus in its present state was not yet a human being for homicide purposes. That is what this debate is about. Our civil law guarantees human beings rights under the constitutions, but it says nothing of non human beings. The argument, of course, is that a fetus is not yet a human being, but merely a human with the potential of “being” and therefore is not afforded the rights set forth under the Constitution.
5. Don’t let us get too enamored with the “culture-talk” about who has rights and who doesn’t? This question assumes that there is a “who” to begin with, if there is no life, as they will argue, there can be no “who” and without a “who” there can be no rights. It’s not a question of which group has rights, but whether there is even a group there at all. Since life is circular in its nature it is difficult to pinpoint the exact moment at which there is a “who” so the easier argument to have with these folk is talking about rights. I think the rights argument works in our favor because it allows the use of civil law to justify our inherently moral position.
6. Abortion is killing human beings. (See above)
7. Time might be better served helping those persons recover from abortions. Your comment clears up the confusion here.
8. Make abortions worse for whom? Well, worse for both the potential or actual (depending on what side you are on) child and for the mother. Women have always had abortions in one-way or another and will continue to do so regardless of the legality. In the past, some women who could not afford another mouth drank tonics or used something as simple as soap to drown the fetus. Making the safe abortion illegal does not solve the problem. Case in point, Latin America where the abortion rate is as much as twice as high as the United States and women are prosecuted for the abortions they have. Women die from the procedure or they refuse (or are refused) medical treatment so as not to be prosecuted for the crime. Source. Abortions are going to happen whether they are legal or illegal. Therefore, current law favors the mother while destroying the child, but to make it illegal would not save the child, but disfavors the mother. Having abortion be illegal might make us feel better as a country for doing the (I’m sure everyone in their heart of hearts would agree) right thing, but doesn’t solve the problem we are trying to solve. What may solve the problem? Compassion and easy unstigmatized alternatives. We need to reach out to these women so that they don’t make this choice. Perhaps advances in science would allow the use of artificial wombs that could carry the fetus until it was viable and then be set up for adoption, eliminating the burden of pregnancy while still saving the life of the child.
9. Analogy to drugs. Well, you make some really great points here in favor of legalizing drugs. Addicts shouldn’t have to deal with “dealers” and we would reduce crime by 50% overnight and thousands of well meaning addicts would be released from prison and have their freedom restored. Sounds like a great idea to me. Honestly, the prohibition of certain drugs and the government subsidies of certain other potentially harmful drugs makes little sense to me. But that is another debate and I don’t really understand why it was brought up here. Are you saying abortion is addictive and we must somehow curb the addiction? Are you saying that people only don’t kill their parents because it’s illegal? You only refrain from drugs because it’s illegal, therefore, in your mind, if abortion were illegal people would refrain from having abortions?
The following is merely an evaluation of your arguments.
Yes abortion is bad for society. I am in total agreement, but Christians treating these souls as any more than sinners who need forgiveness upsets me to the bone. Why is their sin so much worse than mine or yours? How is it our place to tell them before they commit this sin (while going to the clinic) that they will go to hell any more than we were promised hell before redemption? Society would be better served if we loved these people enough so they wouldn’t have to make this choice rather than hating them so much they almost want to make this choice. To compare those who have abortions to thieves’ and murderers is missing the point entirely.
Abortion is not the status quo. It’s a 46% to 46% issue, there is no majority. If by status quo you simply meant “legal” than yes it is legal, but every woman who has an unwanted pregnancy does not immediately run to the abortion decision because it is the most socially acceptable road.
Promotes promiscuity. Sorry Todd, but promiscuity needs no promoting. This same argument could be used for adoption. Do you really want to say that adoption promotes promiscuity?
Undermines monogamy. This is a weak argument against abortion because it can be easily countered. Saying that people will be monogamous when there is a child involved is, well, plainly wrong. Staying together for the kids does not lead to monogamy it merely postpones promiscuity until the child is older. Adultery and Divorce operate at a greater level to undermine monogamy so I would save this argument until you discuss those issues.
Destroys families. I'm curious by what you mean here. Do you mean that it destroys them by not allowing them to exist? Or do you mean the fact that an abortion took place in the past leads to divorce? Or do you mean that a parent facing a child who wants this procedure will favor one parent over the other causing conflict and ultimately the destruction of families?
Jon: I am guessing you'll find some typos in this one.
Thanks. Lots of good remarks here. I will repond very briefly and we can all discuss this maybe when we hook up next time.
My "narcotics" analogy means simply this and no more. Permitting something which is detrimental to the health of a society in order to accomodate those individuals who insist on behaving badly toward themselves and society would make no sense in other scenarios, so why do it in this one? Whether or not certain drugs should be legal was not the point, just an example of a thing I perceive to be similar.
I sense that you may be lumping me in with those self-righteous types who seeth with shrieking rage toward pro-abortion folks. Please don't. They can get on one's nerves, I know. We do tend to see other's sins more readily than our own. But I ask you, does that mean that we ignore the sin altogether? To forgive is not to condone, indeed, to encourage by default. "Go and sin no more," says the Lord, full of compassion, not, "We can fix this at the clinic down the street." The woman who survives the stoning still carries with her the consequences of her actions, though not the guilt of her sin. From that she is saved. Again, we can do what we do to the unborn for one reason; because they are weak. The situation that this or that particular girl is in is irrelevant to the issue of what is to be done. I know we agree on this.
What I call a human being is what any biology professor worth his weight in petri dishes would call a human being; an organism which contains the same genetic material as you and me and that includes a zygote. Of course, the real issue is when is it a person, I know. So, when is it?
And here is where we humans stubbornly refuse to submit to mystery, to say, "I do not know", and resign ourselves to the difficulties we face, whether we bring those difficulties on ourselves or not. Do you know what I mean?
Of course abortions will and probably have indirectly resulted in a decline in monogamy. The effect a child will have on a relationship is far from the point, not what I was getting at. Furthermore, the "stigmatizing" of unwanted pregnancies? Give me a break. Do you think that in the last fifty or so years divorce, homosexuality and promiscuity have not each found their way further into the clear light of day. Of course they have.
Likening abortion to adoption is ridiculous really. The whole point of abortion is to avoid the hassle of a pregnancy, obviously; adoption demans that the pregancy be carried all the way. I cannot fathom a man or a woman saying, "We can coplulate with whomever we please because we can always give the child away, heh, heh!" To that the world replies, "Yeah, sure, if that's what you want then knock yourself out, er, up". Sure, we are a wicked generation and I, for one, need little encouragement to behave badly. But for heaven's sake, if you tell me that it's not only understandable that I am inclined to beat my wife silly from time to time, but, furthermore, that I am permitted by Caesar to do that, well, gosh, I might just fall over backwards with glee, certainly I will not feel as compelled NOT to do it when the urege comes over me next time.
So, very young children are safe under the constitution. Well, sure, for now! Why on earth could that not change tomorrow? It certaily could and if trends continue the way they have for the past fifty years I see no logical reason how an infant in years to come will be safe from its mother who perceives it to be a nuisance and threat to her well-being.
So, these weren't very brief remarks. I gotta go mow now, let's keep talking about this if you guys don't mind. Game?
tm
Brief remarks:
The only reason that I don't see abortion "rights" extending to born children is because people can see them, so they can't deny what they're doing.
One of the worst things to happen to our society is the loss of shame. Abortions allow people to avoid shame even more.
Post a Comment
<< Home