excerpt:
The pro-life people are certainly right about one thing – life does begin at the moment of conception (when else?). Those of us who are pro-choice must wrestle with that uncomfortable fact even as we assert our political view. In nearly every abortion, a decision is being made between the life (or convenience) of the mother and an already growing and developing life with unique DNA. As much of a religious agnostic as I am, I am seriously disturbed by that.
Still, I remain pro-choice because I would prefer the government not be involved in these highly personal decisions. Also, as we all must acknowledge, if abortions become illegal, they will continue anyway and, once again, become more or less a privilege of the rich. Pretty repellent.
Here are some comments to his post:
“Still, I remain pro-choice because I would prefer the government not be involved in these highly *personal* decisions”. I’m an atheist and a fence-sitter on abortion, but who exactly is the person in personal? Since it clearly isn’t the fetus (or your statement wouldn’t make sense) I suggest this is a case of petitio principii [begging the question].
...
Still, I remain pro-choice on the issue of private vengeance because I prefer the government not be involved in these highly personal decisions of whether or not my loved one’s murderer should live or die.
Gee, with that “pro-choice” game, one can justify all sorts of moral relativist mischief, yes?
...
Roger,
I’m rather pro-choice myself. However, I think the government has the responsibility to protect humans from being murdered. If life begins at conception, then eliminating it eliminates a life. I can’t see how that is not the government’s job. I think life begins when brain activity begins in the fetus, and I think the fetus should be protected after that point.
...
Roger:
As a Christian, I am not against giving homosexuals the same civil rights as married couples–this is the United States and everyone should enjoy equal rights under the law–I’m against co-opting the word, ‘marriage’. Marriage is a sacrament of the church. To re-define it is to take one more step in toward making the sacraments of Christianity and Orthodox Judaism unconstitutional and illegal. That’s what the fuss is about: stop trying to criminalize traditional religion.
I, too, was once pro-choice. It ain’t a clear-cut issue. For example, I doubt you’ve ever considered that by acquiescing to the idea that an unborn child can be murdered because its birth is inconvenient, you are also abandoning the idea that every other human life is sacred–even your own, even those of your children. No one imagines that this is true, but it is.
Once you legitimize the utilitarian arguments of the pro-death crowd, it is merely a question of time until you discover under what conditions society believes your own continued existence is inconvenient. Life is sacred for all, or it is sacred for none.
...
The “uncomfortable fact” you must “wrestle” with is a fatal fact for aborted children. Great that your son concocted a child in vitro, but would he have cancelled his plans and terminated the kid if the baby was diagnosed with Down Syndrome while in the breeder’s belly?
The “highly personal decision” of deciding whether to let a child live or not is EXACTLY why a government exists–to protect its citizens. It’s always creepy when an savvy, older, and literate human conveniently forgets that for political expediency.
...
If choosing to end the life of a month-old child is a personal choice which the government should not interfere with, does that mean that in the course of an armed robbery, the choice of the thief to kill or not to kill is a also personal choice?
...
I find the argument that abortions will continue if not legalized used by Roger and some other commenters very dubious. You don’t make something legal that should be illegal because people will do it anyway. What kind of logic is that? It is good thing we don’t use it for every other act against another(e.g. rape victims, murder ). If the baby is being murdered(i.e. innocent life being ended ), then we are to protect it with every fiber of our being and especially a life that has not chance of protecting itself.
...
The one common problem with both issues is that neither seem to be able to define clearly what is ‘it’ upon which the laws are based.
For example, we have laws based upon ‘fetus’ which can change according to time, gender and need. If She chooses to call the ‘fetus’ life then She can receive government funded pre-natal care. If She chooses to call the ‘fetus’ a clump of cells She can receive a government-funded abortion. Now if She askes He to kick her in the stomach while She is carrying the ‘fetus’ and He complies Her request and the ‘fetus’ dies then He is convicted for murder and sent to prision while She is free because of her “Right to Choose”. Roe v Wade is discriminatory in so many ways, it is a terrible law which was judicated rather than legislated and needs to go back to the state so that citizens can duke out the laws for themselves.
Now I am to accept something called “same-sex union between a man and a woman’ which is an irrational premise; there is no such thing as ‘union of same-sex opposites’. Further, homosexuals are not banned from marriage, in fact have married, have had children, have divorced then re-married to have more children since the dawn of marriage.
Gay activists are using a fallacy to judicated a law based upon meaningless words and in order to shut down any debate they will attack with highly-charged emotional words such as homophobe. In other words, if I ask a rational question about an irrational premise then I am charged and condemned as homophobe, such underhanded attacks is called ‘being progressive’
...
You first must start with facts and reasoned arguments. Your post is utter nonsense.
Your reference to Palin’s decision is disgusting. Who in the world are you to pass judgment on the situation?
Next, your assertion that sexual orientation is predetermined is totally absurd. What do you mean by orientation? There is no scientific consensus on this front. Thus, your statement is just your personal feelings on the matter. Further, there is a huge gap between genotype, phenotype and behavior. So what in the world do you mean by your assertion?
Your reference to unchristian beliefs is even more absurd than your appeal to science. What specifically, is unchristian? Are you saying that Christ was unchristian for his teachings? Please explain your confusing assertions.
The connection of all this feeble thought to same sex marriage rights is the final link that you make that is totally absurdly. How does any of this compute?
No comments:
Post a Comment