March For Life

[Lord Winter]

The idea is this - The Supreme court didn't have enough cause to rule in that direction at the time. They cited rules of privacy that did not exist in the amendments used and, even if they did, should not have trumped life.

There is the 9th addmendment to which the founders basicly put in as a catch all for any natural liberties that they didn't foresee. Now if this right to privacy extends to abortion may be dabateable but I think we can all agree that the founders would consider privacy itself as a natural right and thus coverable by the 9th addmendment.

Also the suprume court is checked by both the presidental appointment and congressional nomination thus it can at least get preaty close to the feeling of the times.

and then if all that fails theres the consituational addmendment like Tincow says.

[Lemur]

TuffStuff, the march got coverage here, in the National Catholic Weekly. Not exactly MSM, but it's something, and there's lots and lots of Catholics. Sort of a bittersweet editorial, now that I read it ...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I fully agree.

The first comment is a good one;

Because in the end, they don't really care enough to be bothered with it.

Like slavery in America, which was opposed by the majority almost from day one, the Presidents and candidates played lip service to it. Too afraid to take a strong stance on ANYTHING so as not to get caught up in it.

It's telling that abortion has been an issue in every election since roe v. wade, yet not a single thing has been done about it. It is convenient to keep it a dividing issue to mask the lack of contrast between the two parties on most issues.

This is a huge issue and it needs to be addressed. Again, the tables are turning - more and more, people are coming over to the idea that something needs to be done. Ultrasound was a wakeup call.

[Strike For The South]

I'm not listening to anything that compares abortion to slavery. If you need to use that to win hearts and minds then you've already lost. Do I think abortion is abhorrent? yes but I have no right to govern your body or what you put in or take out of it. I can sit on my pedastal and raise hell. I can yell at women for there bad decisons I can yell at doctors for there poor ethics. I can go on the side of the highway and put up the 34 crosses for dead babies but it all means nothing. Even if the law changes abortions will still happen and at the same rate. For me this issue comes down to realism and idealism. In an ideal wrold every baby would be born and put up for adoption in the real wrold you're looking at 2 dead people instead of 1

[Mikeus Caesar]

I'm not listening to anything that compares abortion to slavery. If you need to use that to win hearts and minds then you've already lost. Do I think abortion is abhorrent? yes but I have no right to govern your body or what you put in or take out of it. I can sit on my pedastal and raise hell. I can yell at women for there bad decisons I can yell at doctors for there poor ethics. I can go on the side of the highway and put up the 34 crosses for dead babies but it all means nothing. Even if the law changes abortions will still happen and at the same rate. For me this issue comes down to realism and idealism. In an ideal wrold every baby would be born and put up for adoption in the real wrold you're looking at 2 dead people instead of 1

THANK YOU, VOICE OF REASON, THANK YOU.

Why am i so overjoyed at strike's statement? Because he says that despite finding it abhorrent, he realises he has no right to govern what other people do with their bodies, and also realises that abortions always happen, no matter what.

If only the rest of the world was like Strike, it would be a better place.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm not listening to anything that compares abortion to slavery. If you need to use that to win hearts and minds then you've already lost. Do I think abortion is abhorrent? yes but I have no right to govern your body or what you put in or take out of it. I can sit on my pedastal and raise hell. I can yell at women for there bad decisons I can yell at doctors for there poor ethics. I can go on the side of the highway and put up the 34 crosses for dead babies but it all means nothing. Even if the law changes abortions will still happen and at the same rate. For me this issue comes down to realism and idealism. In an ideal wrold every baby would be born and put up for adoption in the real wrold you're looking at 2 dead people instead of 1

First - Why is it abhorrent? If it is just a corrective operation, what is the big deal?

Second - Find me legitimate data to suggest historic abortion levels nearing those today.

Third - Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, abortionist and main proponent of the Roe and Doe cases later changed his ways. He claimed the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions were "false figures"

Last - I think that the issue has quite a bit in common with the Slavery issue. Both problems originated in ones convenience trumping the life of another. I'd agree that this is an issue, very similar to the one posed in the early U.S. People came up with reasons why freeing the slaves was "bad for the economy", "Not fair to those who's businesses primarily used slaves", "Would only cause freed slaves pain because they wouldn't be able to find jobs or feed themselves".

I can use any similarities that I believe to be applicable.

Whenever the convenience of one is used as an excuse to de-humanize or murder another, that is our business and it has quite a bit in common with the major evils of our history. Why should we concern ourselves with Darfur, the Balkans, "future genocides"?

This is a balancing act - a womens body and another human being overlap and sovereignty is in question. I realize that, but the current laws pretend that it really isn't an issue and that your humanity and life depend on your location.

[Lemur]

I see The New Republic also has coverage of the march.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I see The New Republic also has coverage of the march.

The page didn't load.

Ron Paul was at the March as it turns out. The President delivered a speech. Hundreds of thousands of marchers. An election year where abortion plays a major part. That makes it news.

and No MSM coverage.

[Strike For The South]

First - Why is it abhorrent? If it is just a corrective operation, what is the big deal?

Second - Find me legitimate data to suggest historic abortion levels nearing those today.

Third - Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, abortionist and main proponent of the Roe and Doe cases later changed his ways. He claimed the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions were "false figures"

Last - I think that the issue has quite a bit in common with the Slavery issue. Both problems originated in ones convenience trumping the life of another. I'd agree that this is an issue, very similar to the one posed in the early U.S. People came up with reasons why freeing the slaves was "bad for the economy", "Not fair to those who's businesses primarily used slaves", "Would only cause freed slaves pain because they wouldn't be able to find jobs or feed themselves".

I can use any similarities that I believe to be applicable.

Whenever the convenience of one is used as an excuse to de-humanize or murder another, that is our business and it has quite a bit in common with the major evils of our history. Why should we concern ourselves with Darfur, the Balkans, "future genocides"?

This is a balancing act - a womens body and another human being overlap and sovereignty is in question. I realize that, but the current laws pretend that it really isn't an issue and that your humanity and life depend on your location.

1. Its abhorrent becuase we're not sure what we're killing

2. http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/305689.aspx There at there lowest in 30 years.

3. They still happen not to mention the rate of infection or other diease figures.

4. Slavery and abortion are no where near applicable. Without the mother the "baby" cannot live black people can live without being enslaved at least I think.

To me this is an issue of all or none. Why is a baby a clump of cells at 12 weeks and a human child at 13? I guess it makes people feel better when the cant distinguish human features. I find it a dispicable and horrid act but I will not trample the rights of my fellow Americans to have my laws changed

[HoreTore]

Bah. Haven't they realized yet that banning abortion just isn't possible?

And, should you do that, instead of being lumped together with industrialized countries like France, Germany and England, you'll get lumped together with glorious countries like Talibanistan, Nobodycaresistan and Mudhutland...

[rory_20_uk]

I'm reminded of the song "Every Sperm is Sacred"...

I've probably come closer than most to the bundles of tissue that are very early pregnancies (abortions in the sense that the foetus was aborted, not often intentional except in non-viable pregnancies).

Medical abortions they don't even get that far but causes the pregnancy to fail, must like many early pregnancies fail anyway.

If there are people that think a sac of a few hundred or thousand cells is equivalent to a human bieng then I'll have to agree to disagree. I loose that may cells all the time as we all do.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bah. Haven't they realized yet that banning abortion just isn't possible?

And, should you do that, instead of being lumped together with industrialized countries like France, Germany and England, you'll get lumped together with glorious countries like Talibanistan, Nobodycaresistan and Mudhutland...

So the legalized killing of the unborn is the ACME of culture/civilization? Even if I were to hold the same view as do you and Rory and many others as to the "start point" of life, I'm certain I wouldn't go quite that far.

I recognize that, for those who do not view life as having resulted at conception, the issue of abortion is completely different -- if it is not an independent life, than there is little moral difference between abortion and abdominoplasty. In fact, more of those who take the not-until-long-after-conception view of life would likely oppose the abdominoplasty as vane or a sign of poor self control but would consider the abortion a wise choice.


Note: For those of you who consistently repeat the mantra that "banning abortion isn't possible" or, "even if you make them illegal, abortions will still occur:"

Definitionally, you are correct. Abortion and abortificants pre-dated laws and moral efforts to stop abortion. Were abortion to be prohibited globally, it would still occur.

However, the rate of abortion per 1000 pregnancies is ALWAYS lower -- sometimes much lower -- when such a procedure is illegal. For those of you who view extant life as trumping an undeveloped tissue mass in all cases, you see this as a near-criminal restriction of individual rights. For those of us who take the conception view of life, however, a reduction of even 1 abortion per 1000 pregnancies -- or 1 abortion total globally -- is a success. So, even though banning the procedure will not eradicate it, the reduction in its use is seen as a triumph for life. The "abortions will happen anyway" argument thus fails to persuade any but the already convinced.


For those commenting on "spontaneous" abortion or failed implantation:

Yes, we who view life as having begun at conception recognize this as a death -- even when we are unaware of that death. Many catholics pray daily for the eternal peace of such souls. The Church advanced the concept of Limbo long since -- though it is little talked about today -- with the concept that, in God's time and mercy these souls too might be saved.

Morally however, a spontaneous abortion or failed implantation was NOT the result of a purposive action. No effort was made to end the life in question, and the "parents" were likely unaware that it had begun or concluded. It is an "accident" of life no different than were I to trip at the top of my stairs and break my neck. Though I hope that not too many of you are rooting for that event after this post.

[Ser Clegane]

So the legalized killing of the unborn is the ACME of culture/civilization?

The ACME of culture and civilisation would (should?) IMHO rather be that unwanted preganancies and abortions are an exception because

a) people of both gender properly take care of birth control if they do not want to raise a child

b) even if an unplanned pregnancy happens the child would be born into a society where its presence would not be considered to be detrimental to the well-being of the parents (i.e. negatice effect on economic situation, career, "life-style")

While I am pro-choice (within a certain time-period and/or under certain consitions), I'd rather prefer abortions to be an exception.

[KukriKhan]

I'll go one further, and suggest the ACME of civilization and culture will have been achieved when we KNOW when life begins (and ends, for that matter) in an individual human.

Today, we do not know. We guess. And we make the 'protect life' societal decisions based on that guesswork.

I'm neither a scientist, nor a theologian, just a citizen who has to help my society decide who gets to live and who gets to die, from the moment of conception to 90 days after apparent death. In between those two events, the society I live in today generally believes individual humans should be left to their own devices, with occasional help given, or hinderence imposed, by the rest of us, when it seems warranted - whether for the good of the individual, or the good of the group-at-large.

Since we today don't KNOW when life begins, and having seen inter-uterine photos of apparently viable beings at various stages of development, I fall back (temporarily, until we KNOW) to the default position of over-estimating the probable 'life-infusion event', and hold the position that societally-protected life begins moments after 'unprotected' sex.

A man's body is his own to do with what he will, generally. A woman's body is her own to do with what she will, also.

UNTIL a third body exists to take into consideration. Then those two people - who agreed to a union that might produce a third person, forfeit some control of their bodies in the interests of that third person, who's body is his or her own ALSO to do with that he or she will.

My 19.95.

[HoreTore]

So the legalized killing of the unborn is the ACME of culture/civilization? Even if I were to hold the same view as do you and Rory and many others as to the "start point" of life, I'm certain I wouldn't go quite that far.

Whether or not abortion is the "ACME of culture" doesn't matter, the fact will remain that should you ban it, the only countries with a similar law will be Talibanistan, Nobodycaresistan and Mudhutland.

But hey, if you wish to be mentioned in the same breath as Talibanistan and their likes; be my guest. I don't live in the US, so I really couldn't care what you do with your citizens.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But hey, if you wish to be mentioned in the same breath as Talibanistan and their likes; be my guest. I don't live in the US, so I really couldn't care what you do with your citizens.

Given that a healthy slice of the "liberal" establishment in Europe holds precisely that view at present, what loss would it represent?

Note: I'm using "liberal" in USA parlance, which is not the same way my Euro friends use the term.

[Ironside]

Yes, we who view life as having begun at conception recognize this as a death -- even when we are unaware of that death. Many catholics pray daily for the eternal peace of such souls. The Church advanced the concept of Limbo long since -- though it is little talked about today -- with the concept that, in God's time and mercy these souls too might be saved.

I've never gotten away from the "kill your unborn/recently babtised child, making the ultimate sacrifice" problem though. The child goes to Limbo/Heaven and the parent ends up in hell.

Isn't Limbo out of Catholic teachings nowadays though, and not merely not spoken of?

Morally however, a spontaneous abortion or failed implantation was NOT the result of a purposive action. No effort was made to end the life in question, and the "parents" were likely unaware that it had begun or concluded. It is an "accident" of life no different than were I to trip at the top of my stairs and break my neck. Though I hope that not too many of you are rooting for that event after this post.

As I mentioned to Xiahou, to do nothing because it's an "accident" is the same as the medical personal leaving you to die because it was a natural incident. You usually don't do that to people.

Thanks for your answers

Tuff, as Tincow was into, the main flaw with the article is that it's still too wide of a concept. Those parts of your unborn twin Tincow mentioned or my personal wierdness favorites, twins where one has developed into what in practice is a parasite, would still be considered as human as any child or adult would be, by only using those guidelines.

Viking is accurate on the "1/3 of my generation is missing" of course, it ends up as a "what if" -scenario.

[Xiahou]

Isn't Limbo out of Catholic teachings nowadays though, and not merely not spoken of?

Off-topic, but afaik, it was never a Catholic teaching.

[Tribesman]

Off-topic, but afaik, it was never a Catholic teaching.

Sort of , it is a strange take it or leave it "teaching" , many priests (over here anyway) took it and passed it onto their parishoners as a teaching of the church .
Which was a bit of a bugger for their parishoners who lost a child before baptism .