Science > Abortion > Is it possible to support a Pro-Life/Pro-Choice stance without 'flip-flopping'???
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Razormw" |
| Date: |
12 Oct 2004 10:22:09 AM |
| Object: |
Is it possible to support a Pro-Life/Pro-Choice stance without 'flip-flopping'??? |
From Trueoptimism.com::
Wetherington:: I've been doing a lot of internal and external
collaboration on this topic and have reaffirmed my recent (6 months
ago) decision to support a moderate anti-abortion platform. Before
you blow me off as ignorant of the constitution and a women's right to
privacy, or even not respecting your personal preference, please
understand that I do know and respect the 9th Amendment. Furthermore,
I do see the inherent right of privacy within the 3rd, 4th, and 5th
amendments. While I see how this would apply to contraception
(Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving
case), and digital anonymity (America vs. its government 2008'), I do
not support it in an abortion context. Especially in the case of
abortions past the second trimester, which most of you have seen
pictures of, in my opinion, is among our worst failures as a morally
developed civilization. It is early term abortions that make this
issue hazy to me and many other people. Of course there is George
Bush's black/white issue stance. But, I'm not sure that he and his
justices who, in some instances, go so far as to support completely
banning contraceptives, truly get the picture either. Let's take a
look at one possible way to look at forming a just law.
Defining the real question, what do we know?
The problem with most pro-choice arguments is an inherent and
basic flaw in the overall understanding of life. I have established
the following points which I believe to be fact:
1. Any American life is protected under the constitution
2. We are unable to accurately determine when life begins, however we
can determine with some confidence when it has ended.
3. Even with an accurate understanding of when "life" begins, we have
only found a definition for our word "life" and not the true beginning
of the over concept of life itself; this coincides with the
understanding that scientific laws only attempt to define what has
always been, they do not create the item which it was describing; we
are still left with the question of where a mass of cells gains it's
humanity.
Ultimately, this thought process is a Platonic argument in which an
unclear definition leads to an unclear conclusion. When a person
argues that life begins at conception, and should be morally and
legally protected from that point forward, their argument is no
stronger than those we claim that life begins after birth. Both points
are arbitrary, and one can claim no greater religious or theological
authority than the latter. Nonetheless, it couldn't hurt to take a
look at what my greater authority says.
Think back to God and Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb I
knew you, and before you were born I consecrated (sanctified) you…"
Apparently, the OT definition of life transcends trimester debates and
the entire notion of "conception". Conception, is the context of the
Bible, is what happens when God "conceives" of someone or something.
The Psalmist paints a vivid picture of this process: "Thou knowest me
right well; my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made
in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. Thy eyes
beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of
them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of
them." (Psalm 139) With that said, I think it's safe to say that
questions over contraception and masturbation resurface. So, to
isolate this a little bit, I'm going to conclude, at best, we know
little about life and its origins. Mother Teresa takes a strong
pro-life stance on religious grounds,
". . .only God can decide life and death. . . . That is why abortion
is such a terrible sin. You are not only killing life, but putting
self before God; yet people decide who has to live and who has to die.
They want to make themselves almighty God. They want to take the power
of God in their hands. They want to say, ‘I can do without God. I can
decide.' That is the most devilish thing that a human hand can do. . .
.."
Mother Teresa(Source)
However, King Solomon feels that the quality of the unborn's life must
be taken into consideration. In it's full context, Ecclesiastes says
that when life is good, we should be thankful. But, when life isn't
good, there may have been a mistake at the beginning:
"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however
many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he
does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the
miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity;
and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it
never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5
[Emphasis Added]
AND
"Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being
done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and
that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their
oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I
congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who
are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has
never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under
the sun."
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3
[Emphasis Added]
Clearly there is a quality of life issue being put forth in the
Scriptures. And in this case, Solomon makes the point that it is
sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to
continue into a miserable life. Now remember, we're not talking about
David's songs here. We're reading the words of the man to whom God
gave the world's greatest wisdom. So, we have a problem here. Or do
we? Perhaps an answer would respect the rights of both sides.
When forming any law pertaining to abortion, we have to take into
consideration the religious, ethical, and constitutional consequences;
at least, moreso than your average policy ruling. A law that clearly
defines when a woman's privacy and ability to have an abortion begin
and end would be in our best interest; a women's bill of rights,
ultimately. Futhermore, I feel that a law that acknowledges and
protects a woman's right to make decisions that pertain to her body is
in the best interest of our society. However, a law that acknowledges
and protects a fetus's right to live when a mothers life is not in
danger is even more important
Ultimately, abortions should be legal, safe, and most importantly,
rare. This is not new, several other people have arrived at this
conclusion, including Clinton. I respect and value a life, however, I
challenge the government to stand in the way if my wife ordaughter
were raped and were in need of an abortion or morning after pill. I
could never support a ban on morning after pills, first trimester
abortions, or even partial birth abortions when the women's life is in
danger, the child is malformed, or incapable of life outside the womb
(less than 10%).
This is a complex problem; but we cannot opt out of making a public
decision merely because of its complexity. Ultimately, at least for
most people, this question boils down to the sovereignty of God and
the sanctity of human life; needless to say, this is something that
will only hurt us as a whole if we ignore it. We can take care of the
safe and legal aspect, but that leaves us with the problem of making
it rare.
This question led me to a peculiar observation; the pro-life people
have absolutely nothing to gain from fewer abortions. Fewer kids mean
less people to fight for scarce resources, less people competing
against their children for college placement, and ultimately less
people competing for their children's jobs. Those who are pro-life are
not the product of political propaganda, party views, or other forms
of ignorance. They generally care about the value of a human life.
Which brings me to this: Adoption services, Planned Parenthood, and
sexual education are vital. If we utilized the resources we have, such
as family, school, and media, to promote moral decisions throughout
society, we would not have to worry about 90% of these abortion cases
because they would not happen. That is not to say that Pro-Choice
people are unethical or otherwise immoral; I'm merely stating that
pro-life advocates have absolutely nothing to gain.
With that said, I think it's important to note that political titles
are ballpark figures, not a ruler. Many Democrats oppose Gay marriage,
abortion, etc. Many Republicans favor Welfare, government healthcare,
title 9, etc. The point here is that we are all working for a better
America. Therefore, I am officially posting a list of the virtues I
feel that every law should reflect, regardless of politico
affiliation:
1. prudence, caution, self discipline
2. conciliation, resolvment, mediation
3. compromise, understanding, moderation
4. variety, adaptability, efficiancy
5. liveliness, passion, authority
Furthermore, all citizens are to begin adopting those virtues in which
they do not currently exhibit themselves. I will allow twenty years
transition before enacting an alternative plan. If the preceeding plan
does not reach fullfillment in twenty years and one day, the proceding
plan will be enacted: Citizens will be exposed to a liberal arts and
scientific education k-12. Upon completion of this education, one will
be allowed to choose two of the following three: Financial Stability
and Solvency, Intelligence and Wisdom, Freedom of speech and behavior.
The remaining choice will become unattainable. Please act accordingly.
(October 12, 2004 - Trueoptimism.com)
.
|
|
| User: "jeffc" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to support a Pro-Life/Pro-Choice stance without 'flip-flopping'??? |
12 Oct 2004 11:48:11 AM |
|
|
"Razormw" <matt.wetherington@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20d93eeb.0410120722.498e791c@posting.google.com...
Of course there is George
Bush's black/white issue stance. But, I'm not sure that he and his
justices who, in some instances, go so far as to support completely
banning contraceptives, truly get the picture either.
You're not sure? Oh boy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
