Posted on 11/22/2001 10:59:38 PM PST by toenail
FDA unleashes new threat to human babies
"In the midst of a terror campaign and a frightening battle against anthrax, the FDA has somehow been able to find the time to sanction yet another form of baby killing," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "The newly-approved birth control patch uses the same abortion-causing chemicals used in many other so-called contraceptives."
With its approval of the birth control patch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has now approved its fourth new "contraceptive" option in the last year. The skin patch has been added to a collection that already includes a monthly injection, a hormone-emitting IUD, and a hormone-emitting contraceptive ring.
"All these devices deliver the same hormones to the woman's body and all work in the same manner," said Mrs. Brown. "They all affect the uterine lining and prevent implantation of a newly-conceived human being, thus causing the end of that human being's life."
"The FDA should be ashamed of itself," said Mrs. Brown. "All Americans should reject this new form of baby killing and seek to protect all innocent human life, from fertilization to natural death."
Release issued: 21 Nov 01
©2001 American Life League, Inc.
I think you did. I sincerly think you did miss something and it has nothing to do with evidence of my ever having been a Catholic of not.
Thanks.
Because you risk the lives of those around you on a daily basis for your own convenience. You can't say that "ALL life is sacred" in any kind of absolute sense and then risk the lives of your children etc without being morally culpable. It is hypocrisy to only apply the standard where convenient (e.g. unborn children) but not where it is inconvenient (e.g. born children). I don't have an argument with your fundamental position per se, I have an argument with the gross inconsistency of its application.
The KJV is a terrible Bible, but the "PC" Bible is the "New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version," by Oxford University Press.
Let us know when you find some Jewish commentary or other writing that supports your crazy theory that the jealousy trial in Numbers had anything to do with abortion. And you'll find some modern commentators who will speculate that, but see if you can't find any support for this notion during the first 2000 years of that law being established. Hop to it.
No, I don't equate those. But that still doesn't address the question. If you take a position of moral absolutism, then you WOULD be morally culpable simply for putting the kids in the car while you run errands. I am merely looking for an explanation of a morally consistent position.
How valuable is life? If you create finite metrics, then abortion could arguably be defensible. If the metric is infinite from the standpoint of morality, then each one of us is as guilty as an abortionist every time we risk someone's life for our own convenience. It isn't morally consistent to say "killing innocent people is always wrong (e.g. abortion)" AND say "risking the lives of my children for my convenience is okay". The only difference between these positions is the certainty of death and the age of the person. Moral relativism allows this to be viewed as a legitimate position, but I'm guessing that most people here (myself included) are not moral relativists. This isn't an easy question to answer, but it is a very legitimate question that should be answerable in any system of moral absolutism that isn't completely arbitrary. Nonetheless, I doubt many people have spent the time to address this sticky issue even though they really should.
Was that good for you? Did you get the right little tingle when you typed those words? Can you type with one hand?
What makes one bible good and another not? I had been told that the bible is the word of god. The original words came from men who were devinely inspired. All the following translations and publication of the bible were also guided by god's hand to insure their integrity.
If god's hand has not guided all translations and version of the bible, how is one to decide what is the god protected version(s)? I know the Catholics have a verification system where by good Catholics look for the imprimatur. Who do others do it?
It isn't morally consistent to say "killing innocent people is always wrong (e.g. abortion)" AND say "risking the lives of my children for my convenience is okay".
You are logically inconsistent in your premises. Want to explain 'metric' to us mortals? [Are you using it in the same mode a physicists would use it to define a field equation set?]
It is all subjective. There is no absolute right or wrong interpretation, there is only what one wishes to believe.
Quite frankly, since I do not accept that the bible is the word of god, all the interpretations are only of historical interest to me.
Well now, for Pete's sake, that's downright silly. After all you've said regarding the Bible and using Numbers as such a strong argument, you now say it's only of historical interest?
Once more: I'm an atheist and don't give a gram of spit for theological fantasies -- yours or anyone else's. For historical interest, could you find any Jewish commentator or historian or other author who, within the first 2000 years of the establishing of the jealousy trial, mentioned that the jealousy trial in Numbers had anything at all to do with abortion?
In case you don't remember, you're the one who brought this up.
Where do you get this? Do these people know that they flushed their babies down a toilet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.