Posted on 01/25/2006 9:37:14 AM PST by summer
"In the grand scheme of things I'd much prefer a woman have a fertilized egg not implant instead of waiting and having her living, moving, fully-formed baby ripped out of her uterus a few months later. It's a difficult moral dilemma. On one hand, the birth control pill may prevent implantation in a minority of cases, but if it prevents true abortions, I believe birth control to be the lesser issue."
The people who think it's all abortion won't make any distinction at all, but I think you're absolutely right about that.
Is a baby a "fully realized human being"?
What about a baby of 8 months gestation? Six months? Two months?
Where should the line be drawn? We have to draw a line somewhere since we criminalize murder. And the line should be drawn on a rational basis.
Don't most doctors warn women about drugs that may cause miscarriage? Aren't they legally obligated to do so? If not, they should be.
So why the exception for the pill? For the same reason that the AMA changed the definition of pregnancy from fertilization to implantation in the early '70s. They didn't want to pee in the punchbowl.
Personally, I'm happy to draw a line at the end of the first trimester, which is long before any viability. There may be medical emergencies after that, for which some provision could be made on a case by case basis.
It would be practically impossible for any parent to force a child to deliver a baby, since a parent can't be with a child 24 hours a day. But I would do everything possible to persuade her to have the child. The child shouldn't suffer the death penalty for a crime he did not commit, the mother's inconvenience notwithstanding.
My young daughters are already aware of the horror of abortion, although they have a difficult time conceiving of the fact that a mother would deliberately kill the child in her womb. I've also told them, "consider the fact that one of every two grown-ups you meet believes that abortion should be legal. People aren't as nice as they appear."
Are you opposed to war as well?
My point is that the first duty of the State is to defend the lives of its citizens, and both war and capital punishment can serve this end.
Now, the previous pope stated that in nations where it is possible to imprison murderers for life, without risk to society, then the death penalty is not necessary. This point is arguable, depending on various circumstances. But importantly, the pope did not reject the State's right to impose capital punishment in principle.
Please do not draw moral equivalence between abortion and the death penalty.
The truth is the truth. Period. It's our duty to inform people of the truth.
If they want to close their eyes for selfish reasons, that's their problem.
In real life, I know many moderate women - some of whom are not remotely religious - who claim to be "pro-choice" solely because certain pro-life groups advocate getting rid of birth control pills as well.
"Moderate" in what sense? That they are willing to accept lies for the sake of convenience? I'm reminded of the following verse of Scripture.
Revelation 3:15-16And this.I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to vomit you out of my mouth.
Luke 12:51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
Why? Because one is less emotionally repellant? Both acts kill a living human being. The acts are morally equivalent when done with full knowledge and malice aforethought.
On one hand, the birth control pill may prevent implantation in a minority of cases, but if it prevents true abortions, I believe birth control to be the lesser issue.
The root of the problem is viewing children as problems and pregancy as illness. Sadly, this mindset has been reinforced by the pervasiveness of contraceptives. Pregnancy represents a state of health, not a disease! Children are a blessing, not a curse!
For heaven's sake, do you have a reason for your belief?
Not one that will ever meet your rigid requirements, which are based on your faith and your sense of moral absolutes, so there isn't much point in going back and forth with you all morning. You look at this question as a faithful Catholic, which is your right to do but not to push onto others who do not share your particular faith. I look at the question through more secular eyes - what will actually work and be politically and legally more palatable for the most people.
So either you have no reason for your belief or you're afraid to offer it because you recognize it as weak.
We're waiting. But I'm not holding my breath.
Yeah, I figured you'd claim victory, that's pretty predictable, but the fact is that we are coming at this from completely different perspectives, and you'll happily pick apart every sentence I type. I have this "job" thing that needs my attention from time to time.
Any argument I make will look "weak" to YOU because it is not based on your perspective. Hell, your perspective thinks birth control pills are baaaaaaaaad, so we have very little common ground.
Why do you refer to yourself as "we"? Editorial, or royal? :)
The main purpose is to protect society from murderers. In most societies, the only practical way to ensure that a murderer will not murder again is by executing him.
Interestingly, you'll not see me opposing putting Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden to death, however. While Hussein's trial is a criminal matter in Iraq, it is a national security matter to us.
Similarly, protecting society from murderers by means of execution is a "national security matter." The first responsibility of the State is to protect the lives of its citizens. With regard to this end, the execution of murderers is paradoxical, but not contradictory.
Many Americans have no religious or moral opposition to contraception and find the linkage of the anti-abortion movement and the anti-contraception movement somewhat strange at best. At worst, it pushes away people who want couples to retain the right to plan family size and spacing, but are against abortion - because it enables the pro-abortion side to lump contraception in with abortion under the euphemistic umbrella of "reproductive freedom."
It seems like it plays into the hands of the pro-choicers quite well by advocating against birth control as well as abortion - that simply makes it easier for the NARAL and Planned Parenthood wackos to decry the loss of their "reproductive rights."
In my not-so-humble opinion, less-religious or non-religious political moderates could really be brought to the anti-abortion side of things if the message was presented in a reasonable and non-judgemental manner. I respect that Catholics have a moral objection to the Pill and to contraception in general, but that does not mean such religiously-based moral objection should apply to secular society as a whole.
Infanticide, on the other hand, can be condemned by just about any reasonable observer - it is unnatural and un-civilized for a woman to kill her own offspring.
Like I've said, I don't expect faithful Catholics to agree with me on the issue of contraception being OK. But looking at the anti-abortion movement from a purely-secular standpoint, it's pretty clear that the argument of "the Pill = abortion" simply gives ammunition against us to the other side.
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.