Posted on 11/13/2007 5:34:21 PM PST by Semper
One of the most dangerous political considerations today is that of abortion; it is a most divisive subject. Many in this arena are motivated by religious beliefs. Just in case anyone has forgotten, we are not a theocracy – our founding fathers wanted religion left to the churches and the government left to the most qualified.
Those who fanatically oppose the medical procedure of abortion refer to themselves as “pro-life”, implying that those who do not agree with them do not value life as much as they do (a most arrogant state of mind) .
To believe so strongly in your understanding of life that you assume the right to take away the freedom of a woman to determine what will define her life is dangerous. You certainly have the right to try to influence that woman to do what you think is best, but it is her right and responsibility to make the final decision.
One of the things that hurts the anti abortion movement is the terms which are coined. A fetus is not a baby (just as a child is not an adult and an adult is not a senior citizen). Human life goes through stages of development. And, until someone is born into this human environment, until they breathe on their own, until they feed on their own, until they exist outside of a woman’s womb, they are not anyone’s responsibility other than the woman who sustains them.
That is unless you want to overrule the intention of our founders and apply your religious understanding of how life should be interpreted and take away the freedom for which countless “already born” have died.
Do you presume to insist that human activity (birth, growth, deterioration, death) is more powerful than God’s creation - which is described as spiritual? Can the human decisions to kill a living person (as in war) or to abort a POTENTIAL, undeveloped person actually overrule God’s creations?
I believe that there is nothing humans can do to overturn God’s laws and his infinite creation of good. What is required is for us to FREELY choose to live in accordance with HIS plan. And politically, we need to support those who realistically have a chance to foster that outcome.
FREEDOM
You are correct, and I don't see abortion ever being banned in these circumstances. The real issue is DEFINING what is meant by "life of the mother." A 20 year old crying about how she is going to have stretch marks and never look good in a bikini again and is depressed because she doesn't think it's fair that she have to be resonsible DOES NOT COUNT.
My own conscience tugs on me about it, because in a way it accepts the death of some.
I know several women who had abortions and they are now among the staunchest opponents of abortion today and I believe their testimony to other women is possibly the most beneficial.
I've seen it & agree, which is why I cringe when I see people demonize all of those who've had them, instead of recognizing it is much better to work to bring them into the fold.
Totally agree.
Nonsense. Even Rudy has said he would nominate good judges that the prolife crowd (of whom I am one) would like. It’s not an issue. Stomping feet and yelling louder doesn’t make it so.
It doesn’t matter anyway. if it came up today, Roe would probably be overturned even with the current court.
There are other more relevant things to use to pick a President. I’m more concerned about Rudy’s (and the others) views on the 2nd amendment.
I don’t ~think~ gun control is going to get much traction as an issue over the term of the next President, and so it may be a moot point as well, but you never know for sure.
No, what Rudy claimed is that he would nominate strict constructionists. I've yet to see Rudy say that, even though he believes abortion should be legal, it is not constitutional. In fact, his positions indicate he believes abortion to be a constitutionally protected right. (Further, he has advocated tax-payer funding of abortion.)
It is more than reasonable to believe that a 'strict constructionist' from Rudy's perspective would hold the same views about abortion he does.
So, it is very MUCH an issue.
There are other more relevant things to use to pick a President.
We each choose what criteria are relevant to our selection of a candidate. Your priorities and mine are obviously different. So be it.
Two years ago while being interviewed on Hannity and Colmes, Rudy said the following:
COLMES: Now, Roe vs. Wade — You are pro-choice. How important is it to you as a pro-choice Republican to have a pro-choice on the court as someone...
GIULIANI: That is not the critical factor. And what’s important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And he fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category.
I mean, she was — she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person. Lots of Republicans supported her. I expect, and listening to Senator Nelson, I expect that John Roberts will get support from a lot of Democrats.
He then confirmed what type of justices he would nominate:
Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163223,00.html
Rooty Toot has NEVER indicated that he would nominate pro-life judges.
I agree, but if he can’t be trusted on abortion, he can’t be trusted at all.
I acknowledge that you don't want to debate but if you choose, please respond to this question: If you would give birth, even if there might not be a live baby and it would put your life at great risk, most likely leaving your family without a wife and mother, how does this serve the cause of life?
I know this is a very rare case, but I am addressing your "no exceptions" position.
I am not for absolute freedom regarding an abortion decision, and I think that decision is now being abused. I would not oppose the overturning of Roe v Wade. I think the abortion debate is hurting and dividing our society. I think fanatical, emotional and uncompromising positions on this question are not going to lead to progress (voluntary decreasing of abortions).
How about pick and choose for war? Did Jesus not say to love your enemies and do good to those who would harm you? How do you justify going to war from that? War is justified in the Old Testament, it is not part of Christian principle but we do it anyway - we don't trust God to protect us, we have to do it ourselves.
How about pick and choose for transportation? Many more die in auto accidents than in mass transportation but we want to drive our cars so we ignore the cost in death.
Almost everyone picks and chooses - if they have the opportunity. Some even choose to forget that the founders of this country left England because of religious persecution.
I can identify with that experience factor. I have been to war enough to know that it should be absolutely the last resort and it is taken way too lightly at present. I will allow that there is a similarity there with abortion.
I've seen it & agree, which is why I cringe when I see people demonize all of those who've had them, instead of recognizing it is much better to work to bring them into the fold.
YES!! It is so much better to work toward eliminating most abortions by helping and allowing women to make the correct choice than it is to make that choice for them.
Good luck to you.
He told us to love our enemies and to do good to those who would harm us, but when the centurion in Capernaum (Matthew 8:5-11) asked Him to heal his servant, he marveled at the cenurian's faith & didn't tell him he must first quit his job, because all wars were immoral.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. At the end of the Last Supper, "And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said unto them, It is enough."
When they came for Him, he asked them why they were coming armed, as they would for a thief, which implies that it is acceptable to use arms when dealing with thieves.
How about pick and choose for transportation? Many more die in auto accidents than in mass transportation but we want to drive our cars so we ignore the cost in death.
Weak argument, less you're trying to say that the majority of those who drive cars do so to cause the deaths of innocents.
If you would give birth, even if there might not be a live baby and it would put your life at great risk, most likely leaving your family without a wife and mother, how does this serve the cause of life?
First I do not own my life. Part of belief in God is trust. Trusting that He will see us and our loved ones through in the most horrible of circumstances. Second if I was still of childbearing age, and faced such a trial I would be confident of two things. My husband and children would understand my decision and find solace in their faith.
This serves the cause of life because it says very simply life’s value comes from God. It is sacred not because of some concrete objective value society places on it. But because we are made in the image and likeness of God. This makes the dignity of the human person inherent. It is not earned. It is not bestowed. It is not diminished or dismissed by circumstances. It is given to us by God and further elevated by the Incarnation.
You ask how I could do this. The same way, I as a mother could place myself in harms way to protect or save my child. Do you think if a car was coming towards my child I would not push him out of the way? Even if it put my own life at risk? Life here on earth is temporary. We are meant to share eternity with Jesus in Heaven. Choosing abortion knowing it is a sin is to choose hell. Why would I want to spend eternity there??
Please read about St Gianna Beretta Molla who did make the decision to refuse abortion at the risk of her own life.
http://www.saintgianna.org/main.htm
You have done a magnificent job with this post.
I’m very glad you brought up St. Gianna Molla as an example.
Your comparison to a woman shielding her child from an on-coming car was a perfect one.
This is the post of the week, lastchance.
Thanks from me and all pro-lifers.
ROE
How about a response to this one: Killing in war is done to make one's life better - for security or economic/philosophical reasons or whatever. You send me out to kill an "enemy" soldier (who very possibly has a family and potential productive career) and feel that is justified (for whatever reason) but you say there is no justification for a woman to make the same decision regarding a life which has not yet manifested in this world. If you are "pro-life" it seems reasonable to apply that concept in all circumstances. If you would give your life for a principle, then that should have no exceptions. How hard will you work to stop war and save lives already being lived in this world?
Here is the argument I sometimes have troube with when I enter into this type of discussion. The baby’s heart beat can be detected at 21 days-— but it could not be sustained outside the womb.
Yet to me it is alive, but is that based solely on my faith?
That is the argument I get from those that do not share my faith.
Genesis 9:5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. YHvH demanded an accounting for the taking of life.
b'shem Yah'shua
I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each
man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be
shed; for in the image of God has God made man.
Flowery writing that says very little.
How do we know when someone has died? Normally, we measure the absence of a heartbeat and brainwaves.
Survival for the fetus(unborn child) simply depends upon time-for growth and maturity of his organs, and nourishment.
Outside the womb, the child still requires time for further maturation and growth and still requires nourishment to survive.
The prenatal stage is simply one of a continuum of the material life of the human being.
There is no demarcation between fertilization and death where the organism moves from non-human to human.
The existence of a genetically distinct human being with his own DNA is objectively verifiable through our ordinary senses and medical equipment.
Therefore, it does not fall into the realm of faith.
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.