Letters to the Editor
-
And so it goes
Again with the heated rhetoric about abortion.
Until the point when those "products of conception" could be independently viable outside the uterus - until that life form is able to breathe air and take nourishment from some other source besides through the mother - it may bear a terrible resemblance to a human being, but it simply is not one.
A pregnant woman is more than an incubator, and to regard her as nothing more than that is far more dehumanizing than the brutality of abortion. That's just about what we're facing at this point in reproductive history.
-
ignorance
hey, guess what, Mr. Mental Illness wannabe: obsessive-compulsive disorder isn't funny.
-
Uriel, please re-read the article
"Most abortions--particularly the ones where the woman just doesn't want the baby--are early. And, no, no cute little feet. It really is pink blob." - Uriel
If you reread the article it's point is that in both the late term and early term abortion, the tissue removed is decidely human in appearance.
"The principal difference between the two procedures is a matter of size and quantity, but the removed material is recognizably and shockingly human. For much too long, the pro-choice movement has relied on comforting euphemisms suggesting that early abortions result in nothing more than unrecognizable globs of goo. That was always sophistry; when you see tiny severed legs, arms and other body parts in that tray, it seems like something worse than that."
Now that human appearance is very disturbing to us as humans, however the basic arguments about self awareness and pain used by the prochoice establishment are still valid (or as valid as is possible in a situation that is impossible to test).
The game of uteran contents, and other euphamisims make the procedure endurable, without that thinking our humanity would crush us for supporting the choice of one's life over anothers.
An early abotion (baring profilactic abortive remebies that occur within moments of fertilization) is the termination of a recognizably human creature, though small and undeveloped.
By the time you can pass a pregnancy test the fetus has started to grow and differentiate it's cells. That doesn't make it a fully realized human life scientificly, but what makes anyone a fully realized human life scientifically is still heavily debated by the scientific community.
A 30 year old woman is just a blob of cells as well, but is clearly aware and able to choose for her self, and so her death is considered murder. The blob of cells of a six week gestated genetically female fetus can not be shown to be aware,and so we hope on the side of caution that it is not, because the possibility puts us in an unwinable position of defending the indefensable.
-
Debate goes on uninofrmed
I have not seen the movie, so I canot say how balanced it really is. I do owever remember ORs "Cities of Refuge" campaign and the pro-life violence in the 90s. I rember fridn being taned to portect clinics in a reasonable peaceful manner. I remember how doctros were killed and nurses maimed in clinic bombigs because nutty people got fired up from listening to the rhetoric from the pulpits that abortions was murder and providers were murderers. I remembr how in the 90s the Catholic Voice published those OR protest at clinics they so eagerly supported. Then after the killing the denials from pro-life organzations and the plupit that they did ot condone violence, yet OR got most ther funding from the Right to Life ORG. Now OR gets funding from the CEO of CURVES.
It is Anitis who claim that pro-choice supporters say the fetus is only a blob. No pro-chocie group has ever claimed this.
Abortion has NEVER been "unrestricted" under Roe v Wade. This is anit PR bull. Under Roe trimester system 1-12 weeks no restrictionsn on aboritns(womens rigths superceed fetus). Majority of aboriotn performed in frist 8 weeks. 13-22 weeks state can restrict abortion it if does not put an "undue burden" on the woman.(woman's rights fetus right equal).
22-36 weeks abortions could ony be perforemd for Life and Health resaons.(fetus rights superceed woman's). The SC ruled last year however that a woman's health no longer counts for late term abortions. So maybe the film maker can go back film a woman,forced to give birth to a severly deformed fetus, and then watch the fetus die a slow death over a few days, and watch the woman suffer severe health consequences.
Why won't pro-lifers, join pro-choice organizatns is their effort to reduce and prevent abortions by supporting access to contracption and family planning? Why do pro-lifers try to stop comprehensive sex education and instead support medically inaccrute "Abstenience Only" edcution? Why is it those opposed to abortion feel the need to control the chocies of women? Why is it that por-life polticians in congress consistently vote aganist programs to help women,children, and families? Can someone answer these quesitons?
As far as the Catholic Church. I used to be a Catholic. The church has never been consistent. Yes the church oppose both the death penalty adn abortion, but on the other hand they also oppose contracepton and sex education. And Catholic lay do not agree consistently on any of thses issues either. The Catholic church did not even consider abortion after quickening (first tremester)a mortal(serious) sin in until after 1900. In fact they never even called it murder until the last decade and only as a PR stunt.
Yes it would be nice to work together to reduce abortions.
-
"Recognizably human?"
Why not "recognizably primate?" Wouldn't that be more accurate? Even more accurate, "recognizably animal."
Here is a chart on fetal development. Are you honestly going to say that a fetus of under three months is "recognizably human?" Have you seen the fetus of a pig?
http://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy-fetal-development-index
-
sigh
Maybe somewhere, on some peice of paper, Catholics have a consistent view of life - whether it's regarding abortion, or the death penalty, or war. But to all the folks who are just shocked and aghast that anyone would suggest otherwise, keep in mind that nobody's been refused the ol' body o' Christ for their position on Iraq. Also, most (no, not all) Catholics are pro-choice on the issue of meat-eating. No matter what flavor of Christianity you are, it seems the most effective way to get butts in pews these days is to whip folks into a frenzy over human sexuality, and the consequences thereof.
Not that I really give a shit - not being any sort of Christian at all.
Which brings us to this old canard of "Let's have everybody on BOTH sides of the abortion debate get together and have a DIALOUGE!"
Sorry - count me out. Way, WAYYYY out. My wife of 10 years and I have 2 wonderful kids, so we've got a pretty good idea of where babies come from. We've seen the photos and shockumentaries, and heard the arguements from hateful and caring prolifers alike. And we've stated together that if, in spite of my vicectomy, she were to get pregnant, abortion would be an option. There would probably be some sadness (because, regardless of what the pope or "feminist for facelifts" Patricia Heaton says, one can feel a sense of loss without accepting a fetus as full person, with all the rights, etc. that entails) and then we would move on with our lives, raising our children, confident of our choices in this morally complex universe.
The dialouge she and I share is the only one we need... no Catholics, Buddhists, or pro-life athiests invited.