The Pro-Life Movement's Problem With Morality

The Washington Dispatch ^ | June 6, 2003 | Cathryn Crawford

[Cathryn Crawford]

Yes.

See post #11.

I'm not a moral relativist, though. They would say - "Yes, in most cases." They see things in more grey terms.

[stands2reason]

Don't worry, Laz there's plenty of hot young single conservative partygirls out there...

[tpaine]

That's why we have to use logic. And instead of relying upon our various different religions to teach moral standards, we must demand that our constitutional 'morality' be taught as a required course for full citizenship, imo.

What do you mean by that, exactly, when it comes to this issue?

As I said at #194:
--- the moral 'logic' that must be used is that of our constitutional due process; --- under this cold logic an unviable baby is not yet a legal person, as it is an inseparable part of its mother.
Thus, abortion cannot be prosecuted as murder until the viablity of the baby is established in a court, before a jury..
- Granted, these are cold hard legal facts, but until someone comes up with a better solution to this moral dilemma, we will have to learn to live with it.
194 -tpaine-

Far too many people in the US of A simply have no clue on what our constitution is all about, morally, or legally..
Naturalized citizens have to pass a simple test on the subject. I think the test should be greatly enlarged and be required in order to vote.

[Clint N. Suhks]

What kind of mickey mouse threat is that?

You're right, Mickey would have been a lot tougher.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Using your logic, debate on the issue is pointless. NRL is pointless. Lobbying is pointless. You sound like those people who tell their kids, "You're going to have sex anyway, so here's some condoms!"

You're right, I absolutely do disagree. Apathy kills people.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Doesn't the Bible say, "Call no man a fool, lest ye be in danger of hellfire"?

That's about judging whether some will or will not go to hell, a decision only God can make.

But thank you for playing.

[cspackler]

I was just wondering why noone had brought this up. I personally know of many couples who have been waiting for quite a long time on the adoption list. There are a great many couples out there just waiting to take care of a baby if only someone could be inconvenienced to carry him/her to term and have the courage to let them go.

[stands2reason]

falling asleep as the doctor ducks between her legs to begin the procedure

She FELL ASLEEP??? More like pass out from the most intense pain you will ever feel in your life...

[Cathryn Crawford]

Partying is one thing. Sleeping around is another. :-)

[MHGinTN]

"The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." Lorianne, that sentence is construed by you (and likely justice Ginsberg) to mean killing an alive unborn child is somehow a 'reproductive right'. Practicing contraception is a reproductive right, where it is the woman who has control over her body, since her body is the only body involved in her choice. Abortion slaughters the body of a second individual already alive and living its individual lifetime. How is the guarantee of a killing to be construed as an actual right of reproduction, since the 'other' is already alive, not potentially alive? If you can explain that to me without it amounting to killing being touted as a reproductive right, I'll count myself informed.

[Lazamataz]

Apathy kills people.

I'm pretty ambivalent about that. The whole concept just fills me with ennui.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Logically,

1. The baby in the womb is alive and meets all the medical and scientific terms of life.

2. The baby in the womb it is human, to argue otherwise is as stupid and illogical as to argue that the moon is made of green cheese.

3. The word "fetus" is a Latin word for child. It is not a medical term for an unborn blob of tissue.

4. To abort it requires that you kill it. If you kill a fetus you kill a child.

5. The intentional killing of a human with forethought and a completele disregard for life is 1st degree murder.

6. The Constitution protects the unborn. Just read it. right there at the top.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

7. Our posterity are those yet to be born. Therefore they have constitutional protection under the 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.

So, logically, killing an unborn baby is both illegal and unconstitutional.

[stands2reason]

I thought it was so trendy and hip that I was planning to have one, and I'm a man!

ROFL!!!

[netmilsmom]

>>You don't have to be particularly religious to be repelled by murder.<<

Absolutely correct. That's why I agree that we need some other kind of back up facts for those who are not religious.
I've said before that if anyone could get an ultrasound machine outside of abortion clinics no woman would stop that beating heart. (and back it up with some literature on adoption). I saw my daughter's heart beat on an ultrasound machine at 7 weeks.

[Lazamataz]

Partying is one thing. Sleeping around is another. :-)

Unless you are actually sleeping.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Using your logic, debate on the issue is pointless. NRL is pointless. Lobbying is pointless. You sound like those people who tell their kids, "You're going to have sex anyway, so here's some condoms!" You're right, I absolutely do disagree. Apathy kills people.

Hyperboly becomes you, in fact you’ve been taking nearly all of my posts out of context. What was that about not being rude to get your point across? Now just stop being a hypocrite and try a rational accusation for once, OK?

[epow]

The only whay I can see justifying abortion is: 1. Pregnancy by rape.

So you think it's OK to punish the victim of the crime instead of the criminal? Or, punish the child along with the criminal? We don't do that with other crimes, why is rape different?

2. Pregnancy by incest.

Again, do you think punishing the innocent child rather than, or along with, the perpetrator of the crime is OK? Guilt isn't an inherited trait, you have to aquire it yourself, and an unborn child isn't capable of doing that.

3. Life/Death health situation for the mother in question

OK, we have a point of agreement here.

My only problem with making, or rather keeping, that procedure legal is this; who decides when the mother's life is truly at stake, the doctor who wants to abort the baby for a profitable fee? The staff of the hospital which also stands to recieve a hefty payment for the procedure? A panel consisting of all parties who have a financial and/or idiological interest in the abortion being performed? The mother or her family who may not want the baby under any circumstances?

If a satisfactory solution to those questions can be worked out, I'm OK with abortion to save the mother's life. But I don't trust any committed pro-abortionists, be they doctors or others, to be honest and truthful in any such case if they are involved in the decision. Call me a skeptic. Or call me Moe, I answer to either name.

[Cathryn Crawford]

You're very welcome. I can quote the Bible with the best of them, Clint.

[stands2reason]

Hey, you'd brag too, if you worked as hard on it as I did!

I figgered....In my youth I was proud of being a bitch, but I got lazy...

[Cathryn Crawford]

I don't think I'm the illogical one.

And you neatly avoided all my points and questions. You get an A for effort.