| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Spooked " |
| Date: |
22 Jun 2004 07:36:18 PM |
| Object: |
aa Contemplation: Abortion |
From the mind of a commoner: Today I've taken an active interest on
the abortion issue, the issue is thrown around in debates between
those participating in cross posted articles between the so called
righteous and us so called heathens. It's evident that all pro-lifers
are opponents of stem cell research.
What follows is nothing new and I don't mean to offend anyone by
presenting common knowledge. Some of this knowledge is new to me
though, because in a passive state bits of information tend to slip by
without notice.
As you know, abortion has been on the hot plate in politics and
religion for over thirty years since Roe vs. Wade. Norma McCorvey
never had an abortion and gave birth to a girl, who was given up for
adoption. McCorvey was baptized in 1995 and now opposes abortion
simply because she's "born again".
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/roe.profile/
It is apparent to me that the issues surrounding abortion are purely
religious, with the Norma McCorvey story being part of the proof.
Another affirmation would be the sort of mentality that produces such
statements as...
"The last corporal work of mercy, to bury the dead, is a declaration
that the human body matters to God. We give to the body the respect
due the person. Part of the measure of Christian civilization--or any
civilization--is how its people treat the human body, because it is a
constitutive part of the person made in the image and likeness of
God." http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/monica15.htm
....along with the disturbing actions portrayed in the following
"galleries"... http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/dc/index.htm
....and with the attempts to personify an aborted fetus:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/pages/abortedbaby37.htm
:Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 20 (Iron Chariots Defeat God)
<f_2dnUf7A91lZUrdRVn-sA@adelphia.com>
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
<hughbetcha@yessiree.ca> wrote:
Bill Clinton used his veto to stop a Rep bill which would have banned
partial birth abortions (I don't need to get into the grisly details of
that, do I?) Organizations like Planned Parenthood work and lobby hard to
eliminate restrictions on access to abortions, many states already do not
require parental consent for minors to procure abortions... (They're all
Dems, by the way.) Do you need more?
Absolutely *none* of these people want *unrestricted* abortion rights. I'll
mark that down as lie #2 of this post. The partial birth abortion is
*restricted* to situations where the life or health of the mother are in
jeopardy. Planned Parenthood approves of the *restrictions* that the Roe
vs. Wade imposes and has not tried to eliminate them.
What "restrictions"? As for the issues of pregnant minors, I think a
responsible society should enforce an abortion for overall and future
good.
"It is safe to say, therefore, that in the first six months of
pregnancy a woman can have an abortion for no reason, but in the last
three months she can have it for any reason. This is abortion on
demand."
http://www.roevwade.org/aod.html
I didn't care much for Clinton, but then I'm a political passivist at
that level. D&E procedures are necessary sometimes in the second and
third trimester as I understand. He was right to veto a bill that
would ban it.
[President Clinton wrote of having "studied and prayed about this
issue...for many months," of finding the procedure "very disturbing,"
and of seeking "common ground...that respects the views of those --
including myself -- who object to this particular procedure." He
indicated that if there were a provision in the bill like Senator
Boxer had proposed, that he would have signed it into law. But he felt
that too many women would be disabled or have their long term health
seriously damaged if the bill were made law. Because it would not
"allow women to protect themselves from serious threats to their
health," he vetoed the bill on 1996-APR-10.]
The major consideration in the secular realm would be the point at
which the life form becomes human, at which point the abortion becomes
murder. This question is sharply entertained in bioethics concerning
stem cell research it seems.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/ethics.asp
"Moral Treatment of Embryos
In the case of embryonic stem cell research, the end that scientists
hope to achieve is the relief of human suffering. That this is a
humanitarian and worthy end is not in dispute. The controversy is
about the means, namely, the consumption of donated embryos. More
particularly, embryonic stem cell research and therapy would use
donated embryos that, by virtue of donor instructions, will never
enter a uterus. Is it permissible to use those means to that end?
Ancient religious texts provide little guidance. The ancients did not
understand embryology, did not imagine that scientists might create
and nurture what we now understand as embryos in the laboratory. Nor
can we get an answer from laboratory experiments. There is no test for
whether an embryo is a person. Instead we are left to our own devices,
to our own moral reasoning."
http://www.isscr.org/public/ethics.htm
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_10.asp
In my view, the "potential human being" is a reality that exists
before the sperm and the ovum unite, after which some feel the
potential human is indeed an actual human at that instance. Why are
the fanatics not mourning every menstrual cycle that kills a potential
human? It seems to be the next logical step when accounting for the
"holy dignity" of the zygote and embryo, which was the step taken
after accounting for the humanity of the fetus.
I contend that the consciousness required for human status comes long
after birth. It's safe to assume human life has not formed until
after the umbilical cord is severed and the fetus becomes an
independent agent. Until then, the creature is simply a parasite
attached to a host. I fail to see how this thought process degrades
the human life to a meaningless state.
Human life is meaningless in itself and the most provocative example
is the fact that we aren't affected, nor effected by the loss of human
life unless it is a life that was personally close to us. This may
seem cold and heartless reasoning, but how many of us are mortified by
the deaths surrounding us on a daily basis, save for those who were
close in some way?
Mourners of past Presidents, for example, are people who want to be
part of the circus, partakers of the big event, there couldn't be a
real sense of loss unless they knew him personally, the sense of loss
should have been felt on the last day the person held office.
Everyone I know said "oh, that's sad" and on to the next subject
they'd go.
A vision comes to mind, a pro-lifer marching past the wreckage that
was once a vital human, who now is perishing, stricken by his own
circumstances that overwhelmed and rendered him useless. The
pro-lifer preaches about the indignities inflicted upon those poor
embryos and fetus, with never a thought for that stricken person who
lives without a home or a life to speak of. To the pro-lifer, this
man is as nameless as those embryos and fetus. This is the point were
human life becomes meaningless, as exemplified by the pro-lifer.
This issue reaches far beyond the rights of women, she's the host to a
parasite, so of course she has the right to dispose of it. Once
everything is considered and rightly settled, much needed research
will be freely and rapidly achieved.
In conclusion, no abortion, nor research donation can be considered
murder. Embryonic research, brain research involving fetuses and any
other research involving the use of these are necessary and warranted.
Is there so much as one secular argument that would suggest otherwise?
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
