Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 3 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Nebraska Bill Would Make Killing An Abortion Provider Justifiable Homicide
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 12:23PM #21
mountain_man
Posts: 44,029

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:16PM, newsjunkie wrote:

If it's not justifiable homicide to kill someone in order to prevent a pregnant woman from being killed or harmed, why would it or should it be justifiable homicide to kill someone in order to prevent a fetus from being killed or harmed?


Choice. No matter how you wish to frame it with emotional rhetoric it is up to the woman to decide what goes on inside her body. Until the embryo is in YOUR body, you get no say. Since men can never become pregnant the only moral position a man can honorably hold is pro choice.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.   Isaac Asimov
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 12:28PM #22
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:06PM, MSaraTemp wrote:


Feb 27, 2011 -- 11:27AM, REteach wrote:

Too bad they don't give a rat's patootie about postborn kids. After they are here, too bad, so sad, fend for yourself.  Cut education, cut healthcare, forget about childcare.  

All they seem to care about is embryos and fetuses. Not independent living human beings.


Yet that too REt isn't true either.

Case in point: Op-Ed piece from NYTimes the other day.



Op-Ed Columnist

The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies





Republicans need to figure out where they stand on children’s welfare. They can’t be “pro-life” when the “child” is in the womb but indifferent when it’s in the world. Allow me to illustrate just how schizophrenic their position has become through the prism of premature babies.  . . . . .


..... The bad news is that, according to the March of Dimes, the Republican budget passed in the House this month could do great damage to this progress. The budget proposes:


$50 million in cuts to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant that “supports state-based prenatal care programs and services for children with special needs.”


$1 billion in cuts to programs at the National Institutes of Health that support “lifesaving biomedical research aimed at finding the causes and developing strategies for preventing preterm birth.”


• Nearly $1 billion in cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its preventive health programs, including to its preterm birth studies.


This is the same budget in which House Republicans voted to strip all federal financing for Planned Parenthood.


It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted — and in some cases dangerous — pregnancies for the sake of “unborn children,” then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane?


And it doesn’t even make economic sense. A 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies estimated that premature births cost the country at least $26 billion a year. At that rate, reducing the number of premature births by just 10 percent would save thousands of babies and $2.6 billion — more than the proposed cuts to the programs listed, programs that also provide a wide variety of other services.


This type of budgetary policy is penny-wise and pound-foolish — and ultimately deadly.
Think about that the next time you hear Republican representatives tout their “pro-life” bona fides. Think about that the next time someone uses the heinous term “baby killer.”
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26blo...




"It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted — and in some cases dangerous — pregnancies for the sake of “unborn children,” then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane?"


Of course you know, marysara, that according to the "morality" of some folks, what's important is that the pregnant woman endure her punishment for being irresponsible (or immoral) and getting pregnant. If part of that punishment is poverty for her and her children, so be it -- if you're poor and were irresponsible you're really bad and deserving of more punishment. I think it's that kind of thinking that must come into play when advocating for denial of or reduced assistance to women and their infant children while at the same time applauding anti-abortion legislation and elimination of funding to planned parenthood.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 12:33PM #23
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:23PM, mountain_man wrote:


Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:16PM, newsjunkie wrote:

If it's not justifiable homicide to kill someone in order to prevent a pregnant woman from being killed or harmed, why would it or should it be justifiable homicide to kill someone in order to prevent a fetus from being killed or harmed?


Choice. No matter how you wish to frame it with emotional rhetoric it is up to the woman to decide what goes on inside her body. Until the embryo is in YOUR body, you get no say. Since men can never become pregnant the only moral position a man can honorably hold is pro choice.




Hey mountainman, remember me from the abortion debate board?? I'm pro-choice. I'm saying these justifiable homicide bills are unnecessary. They are either misdirected -- the pregnant woman is the one who should be protected -- or simply an anti-abortion sham.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 12:45PM #24
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,750

Feb 27, 2011 -- 11:07AM, Ebon wrote:


Feb 26, 2011 -- 5:37PM, Hatman wrote:

What gets me is that in the misplaced zeal to protect the life of a fetus that has yet to draw a breath, they are attempting to invalidate the lives of the living who have drawn hundreds of thousands---if not millions---of breaths.  Whaddawanna bet that Mr. Inconsistency is also quite on-board with the death penalty, too?  "Protect the unborn!  Kill them once they're old enough to piss me off!"  With goodwill to all the People-  Hatman



Quite. It's the inconsistency that pisses me off. The Catholic church opposes abortion but they also oppose the death penalty and the majority of wars. I don't agree with it but I can respect that, it's an intellectually consistent stance. This, this is just playing games.




When you consider that the RCC believes it's right for both the woman with a pregnancy that's killing her to die along with her not-yet-viable fetus, rather than allow an abortion to save the woman's life, it may be intellectually consistent, but it is not, in my view, just, On second thought, it's not even intellectually consistent because the RCC does say it's OK to kill in self defense.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 12:51PM #25
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:45PM, newsjunkie wrote:

When you consider that the RCC believes it's right for both the woman with a pregnancy that's killing her to die along with her not-yet-viable fetus, rather than allow an abortion to save the woman's life, it may be intellectually consistent, but it is not, in my view, just



Not saying it is. I don't agree with the position, I can just respect it as a consistent statement of belief. It's a lot easier to debate someone when their ideas actually state a comprehensible position. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, while abortion is not allowed for any reason, it is allowable to take an action which will result in the death of the foetus if the primary reason is to save the mother's life (or health if that would be seriously damaged).


On second thought, it's not even intellectually consistent because the RCC does say it's OK to kill in self defense.



Hmm. A good point and one I hadn't considered.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 1:12PM #26
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:51PM, Ebon wrote:


Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:45PM, newsjunkie wrote:

When you consider that the RCC believes it's right for both the woman with a pregnancy that's killing her to die along with her not-yet-viable fetus, rather than allow an abortion to save the woman's life, it may be intellectually consistent, but it is not, in my view, just



Not saying it is. I don't agree with the position, I can just respect it as a consistent statement of belief. It's a lot easier to debate someone when their ideas actually state a comprehensible position. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, while abortion is not allowed for any reason, it is allowable to take an action which will result in the death of the foetus if the primary reason is to save the mother's life (or health if that would be seriously damaged).


On second thought, it's not even intellectually consistent because the RCC does say it's OK to kill in self defense.



Hmm. A good point and one I hadn't considered.





 There are some in the RCC who opposes self defense altogether.They prefer that one accepts "martyrdom" than use force to defend themselves.


There was a case where a young lady was beatified because she allowed her attacker to kill her rather than to rape her.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 1:15PM #27
mountain_man
Posts: 44,029

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:33PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Hey mountainman, remember me from the abortion debate board??


Sort of. I haven't been there in years. I'd bet that nothing has changed, just more of the same arguments over and over and over and over and over again.

I'm pro-choice. I'm saying these justifiable homicide bills are unnecessary. They are either misdirected -- the pregnant woman is the one who should be protected -- or simply an anti-abortion sham.


I think they are an anti-abortion scam. These bills are only playing to the anti-choice, anti-women, crowd to get votes. If they really cared about being "pro life" then they would not try to justify the killing of anyone.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.   Isaac Asimov
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 1:17PM #28
mountain_man
Posts: 44,029

Feb 27, 2011 -- 12:45PM, newsjunkie wrote:

When you consider that the RCC believes it's right for both the woman with a pregnancy that's killing her to die along with her not-yet-viable fetus, rather than allow an abortion to save the woman's life, it may be intellectually consistent, but it is not, in my view, just, On second thought, it's not even intellectually consistent because the RCC does say it's OK to kill in self defense.


Then let the fetus kill in self defense.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.   Isaac Asimov
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 2:09PM #29
costrel
Posts: 6,227

Feb 27, 2011 -- 1:12PM, Roodog wrote:

There was a case where a young lady was beatified because she allowed her attacker to kill her rather than to rape her.


Maria Goretti was 11 years old, and according to her official hagiography, Alessandro Serenelli stabbed her fourteen times because she was putting up a fight as he was trying to rape her. Supposedly Goretti told Serenelli that she would rather die than be raped, but that does not mean that she allowed him to kill her. And even though her official hagiography asserts that she was not raped and died a "virgin-martyr," Bruno Guerri (author of the 1985 book Poor Assassin, Poor Saint: The True Story of Maria Goretti) seems to have found evidence that Serenelli stated afterwards that he did, in fact, rape her, which would seem to imply that he stabbed her to death after he raped her.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2011 - 2:13PM #30
MSaraTemp
Posts: 800

Feb 27, 2011 -- 1:12PM, Roodog wrote:

There are some in the RCC who opposes self defense altogether.They prefer that one accepts "martyrdom" than use force to defend themselves.


There was a case where a young lady was beatified because she allowed her attacker to kill her rather than to rape her.


That's nothing.  Of course they, in 2004, made a saint of an Italian woman age 39, and a pediatrician at the time of her death in 1962.  She died from untreated uterine fibroid tumor one week after giving birth to her 4th child.  Her chances of survival would have been greater had she undergone an abortion earlier in her pregnancy but she refused. 
Her "personal choice" to kill herself left her 4 children with one being a newborn, now motherless and a husband without his life's partner. 

So much for being "pro-life" towards the living.
But, that was her "personal choice" and the RCC made her a martyr for the Anti-abortion fraction.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook