Posted on 03/01/2005 7:09:47 PM PST by Rakkasan1
Sue Rockne was a fighter.
At the Minnesota state Capitol, she fought for women's rights, abortion access and safety for battered women. As a Democratic activist, she fought for and with the party and served as a 12-year Democratic National Committee member and five-time delegate to the Democratic National Convention.
And for 13 years she fought leukemia, a cancer that kills many of its victims quickly. She challenged it with the aid of a little red scooter that zoomed her around the Capitol halls and helped her travel across all seven continents in the past decade.
On Saturday, she succumbed to complications from the disease. She was 70.
"She went fast, which is a blessing for her," said her daughter, Lauri Rockne of St. Paul.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
I use the word "seems" because I don't know for sure. "Seems" is not a term which would apply to God. Nowhere have I said or implied that our purpose in life is to strive for our own ultimate pleasure and convenience. I believe that our purpose in this human life is to make as much progress as possible towards that original spiritual image and likeness in which God created us. That progress depends upon freedom. No one can learn the required lessons by giving up the responsibility of determining what is right and freely choosing to follow that determination. In each case where a woman chooses an abortion, it may or may not be the right choice but since it is her body which is providing the possibilities, it is her responsibility to make the choice. The developing potential human being has not yet reached the capacity to choose. As far as "right to life", how do we know that there is not an unlimited possibility for that potential human being to experience this human environment through another? I don't believe our lives "start" with a human birth (or conception - or whatever), I believe we are created in the image of God. God is infinite - no beginning and no end - and therefore that is ultimately how we are also. In other words, true Life is not dependent upon a human act or only a human environment. I believe that the only way we are going to realize this is through the freedom to choose - both right and wrong and then learn from our experiences.
To get a better idea of my position on this, please read the other posts I have made in this thread.
Regarding my "world view", read my bio - I have lived a very full and rewarding life with my particular belief in God and the value of freedom to choose. I admit that I may be wrong about abortion, just as you may be, but whatever the truth regarding this matter, Life will ultimately show us the way. (I am using Life as a synonym for God here.)
One example of the "quality of life" view would be "give me liberty or give me death"; do you view that as a mindless euphemism which is void of meaning?
A baby is a potential adult but does not become an actual adult if killed by a person freely choosing to drink alcohol and drive a car. We all have the potential to make good or poor decisions, what we have to deal with is the actual decision. Potential is what might happen, actual is what has happened. An aborted zygote might have lived or might have been still born and/or might have caused the death of the mother - those are all potential outcomes. An actual baby has been through the whole process of conception, gestation and birth - all of which takes place within and dependent upon the body of a woman; the stages of development after that are in the environment we all share.
There is, of course, a great deal to this subject and you might be able to better understand my position on this by reading other posts I have made on this thread.
Apology accepted. This is a very serious subject and it is understandable that many get upset discussing it.
The vast majority of women who experience 9 months of pregnancy and give birth do not want to give up that baby.
But we are straying from the central point. I agree with you that the abortion you described was most likely not the right decision - especially since it was a coerced decision. Coercion in either direction is not good. Choice means that the responsible person should freely try to make the right decision. Even though I believe that abortion is not the right decision in the vast majority of cases, I believe that this choice should be freely made by the appropriate person which is the woman.
You are playing semantic games and engaging in sophistry.
You know full well that "quality of life" arguments invariably favor snuffing out those whose lives are not considered high enough "quality."
For their own good, of course.
*
I thought this was explained. But I will try again: a third grade student is a "potential" 4th grade student but is not an "actual" 4th grade student until graduated and survived until the 4th grade starts. A child is a "potential" adult but is not an "actual" adult until surviving to whatever society deems adulthood (21 years of age or whatever). Potential means that it is possible, actual means that it has happened. A baby has happened after the process of birth - before that, it is potential.
Another perspective: we have the potential to be perfect (because of our perfect Source); actual perfection seems to be beyond our grasp. Why? Maybe that is inevitable and maybe not. When we realize and live God's perfection, abortion will not be an issue. Focus on the good, the enduring and the true and these will come into your experience. Abortion is not enduring, good or true; let it go. Human beings cannot destroy what God has created. If one is truely intended to be in this human experience they will get here, abortion or not.
Since most of your response is just your opinion which happens to differs from mine, and we are all entitled to our opinions, I will limit my response to your last comment. You say it is only the potential mother's right to choose whether or not to end the pregnancy. Wrong the mother has already made her choice. Unless she was raped or a victim of incest you made her choice when she decided to have unprotected sex. After that and once she is kown to be pregnant it really isn't about her anymore, but about the life she has chosen to create.
The great weakness in the choice argument has always been that the choice has already been made and the abortion rights people want the opportunity for a do-over. But the only way you get a do-over in this type of situation is to kill the baby, end of story.
Moral relativism cloaked in new age philosphy doesn't change the facts that a new life with its own unique DNA pattern has been created and that abortion destroys that new life.
It is possible to become pregnant even with "protected sex". No contraception is 100% except abstinence. That is fact.
Opinion: I do not believe that life is "created" by human procreation. God is the Source of life and what we humans do or don't do is not more powerful than what God has done. Life is eternal since it is a characteristic of God and God is eternal. This flawed human experience is clearly a temporary state which we will overcome at some point after freely making the requisite progress.
Human life begins with the process of birth. The environment of the womb will not allow for development beyond about 9 months. Not until the process of birth does a potential human being become a baby. Not until the process of passing years does a baby become a child, adolescent and adult.
What I am concerned about is the freedom to determine how our lives will proceed with as little interference from the corrupted power of human government. I believe that most abortions are not in anyone's best interest but some may be what is best - but that decision is the responsibility of the woman who is directly involved.
Sucking tobacco smoke into the lungs is really not in anyone's best interest and can even kill those just in proximity - but it is still legal. Try working on that if you are truly interested in a culture of life.
Ah the old let's take the most extreme possibility and use that as a defense for our position. Since contraception is only say, 98% effective then abortion on demand should be acceptable. And let me be sure I have this straight, you are saying that a completely unique life with its own DNA is not a life because the baby hasn't left the mother's womb, so that makes it alright for the mother to just flush that life down the toilet at her leisure. I will give you credit for creativity. Have you ever applied for a job as a spokesperson for PPH? I don't think they have ever come up with a argument for killing unborn children quite that novel.
I feel really sorry for someone who thinks second hand smoke is a bigger pro-life issue than abortion.
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.