Posted on 01/22/2003 8:00:21 AM PST by no other way out
The issue is at what point should the government use its guns to force a person to not endanger the life of another person. Where you or I draw the line on when it becomes a "little person" is simply one answer in the debate. I'm not pretending to know the answer. I believe Miller's point is that each persons "answer" should be their own solution (within reason - I believe it is, almost, universally accepted that abortion should not occur after the baby is capable of surviving on its own) and that that person must answer to their own God.
Since one out of two pregnancies end in miscarriage, what do you call that? God's choice?
That must make for a lot of "gods" - and just as many versions of right and wrong.
You make a good point. Should the religious beliefs of individuals who believe in a particular "God" be the guiding principle in the abortion issue? Or should it be based on something more objective?
Hint: if you say 20%, you are too high.
Quandary: in your opinion, does preventing implantation through physical barrier or medication constitute the taking of a life?
NOt everything that happens in this world is "God's choice." We have a Free Will.
Since some children are miscarried early, for a variety of natural reasons, is it then OK to artificially induce miscarriages?
People have heart attacks naturally every day and die. Is it therefore OK to artificially induce heart attacks in people?
SD
Well, Dennis, this might not be your business but it's my business. The slaughter of millions of babies or would be babies is everybody's business. We will all be called into account of our actions, or inactions before an almighty God. To fail to speak out or oppose this evil is to passively permit it, and thus be as guilty as those who champion the cause.
I can't stop someone from getting an abortion, but I sure as hell want the government to stop using my money to pay for it.
But you see, we can't be laissez fair about the life of the smallest, weakest, most needy and vulnerable of us, and have any hope of regarding ourselves as a civilized society.
And my honest question is why we should respect the opinion of anyone who says, "Yeah yeah, sure: different DNA, heartbeat, brainwaves, human child -- but I still want to kill it, and to do that I have to not care about the rest, so... I don't care about the rest!" Seriously, why should we respect that opinion any more than we would respect the opinion of someone who says "I personally believe as an article of religious faith that any fourteen year old who eats too much and has a surly attitude is, by definition, not human, and so, since he's as much a part of my body as he was at 4 months, I believe I have the right to 'terminate parenthood' [i.e. kill him]."
We wouldn't respect that viewpoint. It's meritless, and clearly invented for the indulgence of the would-be parenthood-terminator. Just like the pro-abort position!
Dan
This is done all the time when the fetus is either dead or will die. D&C's are a prime example of artificially inducing miscarriages when the fetus has already died.
People have heart attacks naturally every day and die. Is it therefore OK to artificially induce heart attacks in people?
Not sure of your point here but unless there is a valid medical reason for inducing a heart attack (I beleive there is some procedure that does this in order to correct a problem) then no, it is not okay as it violates that persons right to life.
My point to the poster was that not "every" union of sperm and egg results in a man or woman.
My point is this: it is impossible to draw a bright line, even if one takes the basic "life begins at conception" approach. If life begins at conception, I've had about 18 miscarried children, that I know about. I don't believe that. If life begins at conception, more children are miscarried than are born. If that is true, can one really say that life begins at conception? Life begins at conception, and, more likely than not, ends shortly thereafter? No. You can believe that. I don't.
If life begins at conception, use of an IUD is abortion. If life begins at conception, smoking by the woman, which decreases the quality of the uterine lining and therefore the chance of implantation, could be considered an attempt at abortion.
If you can't draw the line at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg (and I don't think you can), then you just can't draw a line until viablity, at least. That's my point.
Personally, I completely agree with you. I do not respect their decision either. However, that is not at issue. The issue is should the police power of the government be used to keep a person from depriving another person of their life when the definition of a "person" has no answer? In the latter example, virtually everyone recognizes that we are talking about killing a living person. In the former, we will debate it until Kindom Come.
Honestly, I have no answer. I know what I believe but that is different from many. It is the sole issue with the libertarian philosophy that I have been unable to reconcile.
You're issue is not abortion but a self worth issue....resolve that then you can contemplate outside issues without bias....
You control your life and where it goes, not any male your involved with.
For example, I could be staunchly pro-abortion and I can assure you that my wife would never be swayed.
The issue is the child and not the woman's body or imposing control.
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.