|
Important
twitter updates
Hosted by
the mindful mission Recent Comments
Most Commented Posts
Categories
Archives
Syndication
Credits
|
Pro-life: A different Perspective
From Ed, at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis [hat tip Lauren at Feministe]:
I have recently been in an e-mail exchange with a friend about this exact issue. He votes Republican solely because of abortion, because he believes that eventually Republicans will make abortion illegal. The problem with this is that it is unrealistic, as it is very highly unlikely that abortion will be made illegal. So I argue that we need to respond to the cause instead of the problem. In my pro-life philosophy, I believe that abortion is wrong. But I do not believe that abortion is the root of the problem. The root of the problem is unwanted pregnancies, and there is a great number of things that we can do to address this problem. Some of those things are as follows:
As Ed pointed out - we do all of these things, and much more. But we do not. One side ("liberals") are often unwilling to acknowledge that abortion is a bad thing, so they are unwilling to address these issues in that light. The other side ("conservatives") are unwilling because it costs money and talks about sex - both things that the Right claims to hate. We can do so much more to reduce abortions. Why are we not willing? Comments, Pingbacks:
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 10/03/05 @ 18:20
 Permalink
couple of thoughts:
the REAL root of the problem is lack of personal responsibility. Banning abortion will not end abortion but it will save MILLIONS of lives. Banning murder hasn't ended murder. The existence of a world court hasn't ended genocide. But it's a huge step in the right direction. True, a Republican or Democrat administration will probably not seek a ban. Then again, ending slavery wasn't considered a viable political option at one point either. But society evolved. We can bolster personal responsibility and make it easier to donate to charity. The Right seriously needs to get over their sexual hangups. Looking at MY church however...and it's a fairly moderate church...this is not likely to happen soon.
the REAL root of the problem is lack of personal responsibility.
Some (not me) would say that having an abortion is an example of personal responsibility.
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 10/03/05 @ 19:00
Permalink
And they would be wrong. "whoops? how did this happen? I was just walking down the street and shazaam! I fell down and landed in this woman's vagina!"
There is an alarming rate of abortions among marrieds, who practice personal responsibility and engage in sexual action with fidelity, and well, the birth control didn't cover it one time. But they can't afford a kid because there has been no social structure to help them out.
Now I totally disagree with that situation, but there are many people who feel that hopeless.
But they can't afford a kid because there has been no social structure to help them out.
And they chose to have a baby that they could not afford. Or chose to leave them selves open to having a baby that they could not afford.
I don't think that punishing the child/baby/fetus is the right thing to do for the parent's lack of responsibility.
I don't think that punishing the child/baby/fetus is the right thing to do for the parent's lack of responsibility.
Honzo...nothing in this post said that we should punish the fetus, did it? This post was essentially about creating responsibility. It is about stopping the need to "punish the child". It is about providing ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies. If there are no unwanted pregnancies, there are no abortions.
Comment from: Mike [Visitor] 10/05/05 @ 14:36
Permalink
I don't think that punishing the child/baby/fetus is the right thing to do for the parent's lack of responsibility.
I will play the fence sitting devils advocate. right now ... .. Wouldn't it in some cases be punishing the child in some circomstances to bring the child up in an environment in which they were never wanted? I think along similar wavelengths to many of the posts. The prior situation isn't always the case (a couple I know have a awsome unexpected son who they love deeply), but, barring the social supports mentioned by Dave can any of you honestly say that there aren't some situations children would be better off not living? Child welfare is good and all but they're not properly funded. Also, I have never had to participate in such a decision (and consciously I don't know anyone who has) (I also hope I never have to), but, I wouldn't write off the effect that choosing to have a abortion has on someone. While there are some who may make light of the decision I can't imagine that it is the case for most. So to rearticulate, I think there is some warped principle / sense of responsibility or compassion occuring in such a case, even if the factual truth is that a child could be supported. Dave you're right, if you address the root problems that lead to unwanted pregnencies regardless of moral / philosophical / ethical / religious decisions the issue becomes smaller and perhaps even arguably more managable to discuss. Oh and that law is messed! Interested to hear what you think on this issue I usually am on the slightly more conservative side of the spectrum among my circle of friends. Cheers friends, Mike Wouldn't it in some cases be punishing the child in some circumstances to bring the child up in an environment in which they were never wanted? And to the devil's advocate, my response would have to be as follows. If you follow the assertions that a child that is not wanted should be killed in its early stages of development because its upbringing would be bad, hard, etc... Then it would seem to follow that parents that have such unwanted children should be allowed to end their lives. For the reason of ending the separate entity's life would be the same in each case. I would say that the killing of the fetus/baby in the case of it being unwanted is a greater punishment on the child/baby/fetus. You would be robbing it of all possible future choices. That is far worse than in being rob of a future good upbringing. For the fetus/baby/child will be robbed of a good upbringing in each case. The unwanted justification for abortion, if justified can open the door for involuntary euthanasia, whether it be IPE or IAE. While I support will all possibility, the notions of voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia I do not think can be justified and neither can abortion in the case of unwanted pregnancies. Dave - I understand that you are not advocating it. I just want to submit that I don't I do not think that parent's choice to have or leave open the possibility to having a baby when they cannot afford it is sufficient justification to have an abortion. With that said, I agree 100% with "If there are no unwanted pregnancies, there are no abortions," and that creating situations where more pregnancies are wanted pregnancies is an excellent approach to the problem. I also think the allowance should parallel with the murder case with the laws. Just because people will do it anyway does not mean that we should throw up our hands and say "Ok, kill that person inside you."
Note: right after the linked volontary euthanasia, the next word should be "involontary euthanasia" instead of "unvolontary euthanasia".
I am not sure about the moral permisability of non-volontary euthanasia - yet.
Here you go...I fixed some of your comment for you. It needed it! :)
I unchecked the auto br tag. I got a mash of words.
Thanks for the edit.
Comment from: Mike [Visitor] 10/05/05 @ 17:50
Permalink
Honzo: skimmed through the article, well presented (will probably re-read when I have more time).
I also think the allowance should parallel with the murder case with the laws what does this mean? I'm not sure that I'm familiar with what you're talking about. I do agree that involuntary euphanasia is a frightening prospect, no matter how one might regulate / approach the issue. I suppose that a good discussion should wait until Dave raises the issue with a good example. "Deprived of all possible choices" (paraphrased). I remember a while back someone sued a doctor for advising their parents to continue their pregnacy (i.e. being responsible for their birth). I think that that idea that those "choices" also include the right to choose not be born seems rather ridicoulous (including many bizarre implications), but, it perhaps is also due for consideration. When I was young I remember meeting a street girl who was an alcoholic and a pcp addict and was pregnant(friend of friend at the time). Despite that I maintain a deep love for life-energy (for lack of a better word) and that I don't like the way that especially some discussions of abortion cheapen it, I can't help but, wonder what this child would desire (and I hope that if they still exist that they have found a place in the world)? Such an anecdote can't be really discussed I appologize (as the facts are far in the past), but, that is where my concern over the possible compassionate argument comes from (I don't think it is the end all be all of the discussion by far). Even if I ever came to the conclusion that what I have outlined is the case, I would never ever think that we should therefore inforce such an idea as it would lead to the same kind of world as involuntary euphanasia. More then anything such example I guess is really just an example of a tragedy with no clear answer. Dave, I think we all agree with you :). I'm intrigued by this line of discussion (forcing me to think which is always good) but if its too off topic just say so. Thanks, Mike
Comment from: Right Democrat [Visitor] · http://www.rightdemocrat.blogspot.com 10/09/05 @ 23:48
Permalink
Pro-life Democrats in Congress have introduced a proposal that has the potential of reducing the abortion rate by 95% within the next 10 years. The 95/10 plan is a comprehensive legislative package which would ban discriminatory insurance industry practices against pregnant women; make the adoption tax credits permanent; fully fund the WIC program; expand funding of domestic violence programs; establish pregnancy prevention programs and require that insurers cover contraceptives. It is a proposal that should receive wide public support from both pro-life and pro-choice advocates. Listed below is a link to a recent column from the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle about the plan. http://tinyurl.com/bs5ax
More details of the 95/10 initiative at http://www.floridadfla.org/news.asp?newsid=17 Leave a comment:
|
Friends of
the mindful mission Visit the mindful mission's Amazon store 
Im online casino Playunited wird Ihnen eine grosse Auswahl von online spielautomaten und Internet roulette spielen und zur Verfügung gestellt. friends Trying to make a difference? Get your Master's Degree in Social Work recommended blogs criminal justice/death penalty Progressive Christian Blog Network
|
