.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Thought

So all of Notre Dame is pro choice by force now? Right?

posted by mikevotes at 9:22 PM

10 Comments:

  • As a RC I look at the Pro-Life movement as severely hypocritical. I've worked with PL people who were so for the Iraq War they were actually giddy when it started.

    In the same breath they denounce abortion because they are "pro-life", wtf?

    Myself I'm pro-life to the point that I can not justify war, abortion, capital punishment or any other state sanctioned killing.

    I've only found once where some Franciscans were protesting abortion AND war and CP at the same time.

    OTOH I cannot be the one to tell a 12yo that's been raped that they will be forced to carry a baby to full term.

    The RC church's stand is "Let nature take it's course".

    I may not be the best dogmatic RC but I try very hard to have a consistent view of the inherent value of life.

    My $.02 worth.

    This ND thing is just flack from the dogmatic wing that makes up most of the RC GOP at this point. If Catholics knew the parties that created the Republican party they might think twice about being a member(nah who am I kidding). They're loud and pious but ultimately lacking in any virture remotely resembly charity, forgiveness or compassion.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:58 PM  

  • I'm very pro-choice. It's not for me to make absolutist decisions which don't take into account all the possible circumstances like the one you mention above.

    But I gotta say that of all the right positions I "get" pro-life the most. I disagree, but unlike anti-evolution or gay marriage, I understand the logic of how you get there.

    ....

    PS. A note to any and all commenters, I really don't want to spend my whole day fighting over abortion, so if my responses are brief, that's why.

    This post was meant more as a snark at the absolutists who tried to make the Notre Dame speech an issue.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 7:31 AM  

  • It's a highly charged issue and arguing about has never changed anyone's mind before.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:40 AM  

  • I understand the passion and I blogged on the Dakota measure, but generally, that's kinda my thinking.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 10:04 AM  

  • The abortion issue is complicated for many reasons, but I see it as a crossroads of two "moral" subject areas: human rights and sexuality. In unwinding the debate, you'll find that for some (many, most?) there is an equally uncompromising obsession to contraception as there is to abortion. And then you're into the whole sexuality/immorality discussion.

    The debate is too clouded with other noise - like sexual distractions and views of women, of the power of the state to enforce dogma, and even the anti-theists -- to really approach anything like an intellectual discussion.

    Removing the sexuality obsession, you are left with the theological/philosophical question of when does human life (an organism that is uniquely of our species) become a human being. No one... NO ONE... would argue that one human being should be killed to please the convenience of another human being. We are arguing about when a genetic organism becomes a human being in law. One side is arguing their theology should be imposed on the whole, rather than allow individuals the freedom of thought and theology.

    Yes, I get where some segment of the anti-abortion group is coming from. I just don't ascribe to their theological argument.

    Paraphrasing Al Franken... If I walked into a burning fertility clinic and found a crying baby in a crib next to an cooler containing 1,000 frozen fertilized eggs, I'd save the baby and let the 1,000 fertilized eggs perish. I would not flinch. I would not hesitate.

    I want to meet the person who pull out the cooler and leave the baby to burn.

    By Blogger -epm, at 11:18 AM  

  • That is a great comment.

    I might take issue with the idea that life begins at conception is a purely theological argument. Understand, I'm definitely on your side, but there's no set legal way to define "when life begins." Viability is the current legal definition, and I find it as good as any argument, but recognize that it is a legal convenience of sorts and not a cast iron distinction.

    Again, although I disagree with it, I "get" the non-theological pro-life argument.

    Last, just to start an argument with someone, I find pro-lifers to be absolute hypocrites because if they do truly believe abortion is murder, their absolute lack of action to stop it beyond voting or a few paltry donations is unforgivable. If 40% or whatever really believes that we're "murdering" a half million people a year, they sure aren't doing dick about it. To my mind, they would deserve to rot in hell right next to the rest of us, you know?

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:26 PM  

  • I think once you start calling a fertilized egg a "baby" you've transcended into the theological/philosophical. I realize that not all anti-abortion arguments are theological, but by far most are. I also recognize a philosophical argument that doesn't necessarily require a Theos, and to some degree I can appreciate this.

    My personal belief -- my philosophy, my faith, if you will -- is that human embryonic life is special and unique. However, I don't think it's a human being. And I absolutely abhor the use of the word "baby" to describe a fertilized egg, or embryo, or proto-human organism.

    But here's the thing, there's a continuum of development from fertilization to birth whereby an organism of human genetic origin develops/evolves/transforms to a human being; a person under the law. What we (the broad societal "we") are arguing about is where along that continuum the genetic soup goes from proto-human to human being. And objective science, I believe, leaves us wanting, as even the recognition of the specialness of Humanity is an article of faith and not science.

    We are left, then, with our best judgements --supported, where possible, by empirical truths -- and always yielding to the individual in matters of faith and philosophy. I would no more force a woman to abort a fetus sure to be born with severe and terminal birth defects, than I would force her to bear it to term. Fortunately, our (federal) laws are both flexible and strict in that they recognize a higher bar be set as the fetus moves through stages of development. Yet we must also trust that our fellow citizens are as privileged as we are to make moral decisions -- and to seek their own independent counsel from their own physicians and their own faith-counselors.

    Sorry to be a bit preachy...

    By Blogger -epm, at 2:56 PM  

  • Okay. Read your comment and going back to my previous position. Don't want to argue about abortion all day.

    Sorry. I recognize I started it, but I'm bailing out.

    You just had a really good comment, and I wanted to respond.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 3:45 PM  

  • I'm done too...

    See, we're "friends" and we can't even talk about abortion! :)

    By Blogger -epm, at 4:29 PM  

  • qzz0613
    tory burch outlet
    pandora charms
    michael kors uk
    mulberry handbags
    jack wolfskin
    pandora charms sale clearance
    prada shoes
    cheap jordans
    coach outlet
    true religion jeans

    By Blogger Unknown, at 9:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home