Posted on 05/29/2003 9:41:00 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
Orlando group says Miami disabled woman will not abort fetus
MIAMI - (AP) -- An anti-abortion group claims it has convinced a retarded, deaf, seizure-prone and pregnant rape victim to have surgery to deliver her baby, even though her doctors received authorization from a judge last week to abort the fetus.
The Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, a group that defends religious civil liberties, made the announcement late Wednesday and called it a major victory in the ongoing debate over abortions.
''We're very excited and very pleased with the result,'' said Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Liberty Counsel. ``We're very pleased that Baby Doe will have a chance at life now.''
Circuit Judge Arthur Rothenberg gave permission last week to doctors at Jackson Memorial Hospital to abort the fetus, which is in its 24th week of development. The judge also authorized doctors to perform a tubal ligation so the woman can't become pregnant again.
(Excerpt) Read more at miami.com ...
Obviously these should be strongly regulated, available only for victims of rape or incest. I recongize that there is a slippery slope argument here (and that once accepted for limited means there is a large chance they will be used as a matter of course by everyone), pro-lifers should fight to see them limited as opposed to banned. If you fight to ban them you will lose a large number of supporters. I myself would rather seem them used indiscriminately rather than not available to those who desperately need them.
What matters is your rigidy may be contributing to keeping abortion-on-demand legal. If you cannot see the difference between aborting a baby at 2 weeks conception versus at 12 or 24 weeks, then why not keep the abortion laws as they are? I mean, we are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't-- might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
The fact is, as you very well know, conception due to violent rapes and incest are quite rare. When you deny these exceptions you lose the support of those who would otherwise like to see abortion-on-demand re-criminalized. However, by remaining a purist, you don't actually contribute to the potential saving of that many more babies (considering the rarity of these problems) and you prolong the length of time that abortion-on-demand remains legal. But, as you say, let the chips fall where they may.
I'm curious. What would constitute proof for you?
In fact, a spiral argument can be made regarding the inspired nature of Scripture.
1) The Bible is considered as an historical document, like the writings of Josephus.
2) Far more copies exist of the Bible than any other contemporary document (about 500 copies dating back to around the year 300 A.D., I believe) It's contents, particularly its New Testment contents is established with moral certainty. Discrepancies are largely grammatical.
3) In the New Testament, Jesus prophecies that he will establish a Church against which the gates of hell will not prevail. Additionally, Jesus gives Peter "the keys of the kingdom," an allusion to the position of vice-regent of the Kingdom of David (Isaiah 22:22). Peter becomes the earthly representative of Christ and head of His Church on earth.
4) It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Christ. The Church has been led by an unbroken line of Christ's vice-regents or popes.
5) No remotely comparable earthly institution exists.
6) Therefore, it is far more reasonable than not to conclude that the Catholic Church is what it says it is, the Church of Christ, the Son of God.
7) The Church defines the canon of Scripture.
8) Therefore, we can know with moral certainty that the Book of Job is inspired.
and many, myself included, find the entire ordeal of Job offensive. Think about it. God makes a bet with the Devil to test Job. So God then kills off Job's entire family
God allows evil so that good may come from it. So although God appears to be wagering frivolously with a man's life, he is in fact allowing evil to run its course in order that a greater good can come from it. What good? Only God can possibly know that, but we can speculate. Obviously, Job lost much, yet he was given much more in the end, and his soul was further purified. His family members lost their lives, but probably went on to Heaven, our ultimate goal.
Regarding "God killing Job's entire family," God doesn't will evil, he allows it. Big difference.
Many people don't feel pain for various reasons (coma, anesthesia). Not a sufficient justification for murder.
You're confusing the logical and practical arguments. Legally, just about anything is better than the status quo. This has no bearing on the fact that a person is a person from conception.
I am not confusing anything. There is such a thing as the lesser of two evils. Yes, abortion is murder at any time. However, in the case of rape or incest, that murder is preferable to the alternative. You may not believe it is so, in which case I hope you, gently and lovingly (unlike your persona on this thread) try to reach the hearts of the mothers who are placed in such a horrible situation. But if you try to force this issue LEGALLY, you will only accomplish the goal of keeping all abortions legal.
But a 12 week old baby does. (In fact, even an 8 week old child not only has limbs, but all major body systems in place, and very likely does feel pain.)
And you were arguing that cutting up a 12 week old was OK, right?
And there is not only the problem of pain, of course. Suppose we anesthetized a person before murdering him. That would barely reduce the enormity of what we were doing.
You'd find full agreement from Dr. Mengele on that one.
The morning after pill is not without its trauma, both physical and (worse) psychic. No one knows the long-term effects, physically.
But that's not what we're talking about in the vast majority of abortions -- even for the 12-weeks-and-under abortions you consider OK. Many involve, minimally, RU-486, which is a very traumatic experience.
After 7 weeks an abortion is almost always surgical -- which of course means sticking sharp intruments into the woman's womb and dismembering the baby. I'd call that pretty traumatic.
They're both human beings.
What do you think it is?
Besides having to deal with the emotional and physical distress of having been raped, you want the rape victim to have to deal with the emotional and physical distress of having murdered an innocent unborn child?
This position also makes you personally complicit in the act of placing blood on her hands.
Finally, if you find a testimony on-line of a rape victim who, after having given birth to the child conceived by the rape, wishes that the child had never been born, please send it along.
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.