Planned Parenthood on the run

[coastie]

Originally posted by seebs


To some kids, it sends the message "No, we don't think your dad should beat you senseless again."

I don't approve of kids getting abortions, but I also don't approve of some of the alternatives, especially given the existance of abusive parents.

Very true and very unfortunate that is so often a reality. The cure for the symptoms is not the cure for the disease here though. The parents need to be taken out of the picture. PP shouldn't just get the daughter a silent abortion, if there are problems of abuse, the father should be put in jail.

By simply avoiding the problem nothing is solved.

God Bless,

Zach

 

[Susan]

AMEN!

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by coastie

Very true and very unfortunate that is so often a reality. The cure for the symptoms is not the cure for the disease here though. The parents need to be taken out of the picture. PP shouldn't just get the daughter a silent abortion, if there are problems of abuse, the father should be put in jail.

By simply avoiding the problem nothing is solved.

I tend to agree - but in practice, it's often very, very, hard to do anything about abuse. So... We do what we can to minimize the damage, we try to present people with the whole picture, and we try to help them make good choices, but in the end, I think we have to leave moral choices up to the individual.

 

[coastie]

I don't think that we leave the moral choice up to criminals of whether or not they want to kill someone. We do everything in our power to not allow them to do so. The option of whether or not a minor or anyone else wants to kill a baby is not a personal decision.

 

[seebs]

I would agree wholeheartedly if I had never met people who, after much consideration, had concluded that a zygote wasn't a "person". When there's room for serious debate about whether or not a given lump of protoplasm is a "person", then I don't want laws involved.

What is it about a given thing that makes it a "person"? A soul? A body? The likely expectation that it will develop into a person?

If a scientist begins to grow a human clone, in violation of the law, is the clone a "person"?

I can't decide. I have seen good arguments on both sides. I personally *believe* that human life begins at conception, but I don't have the authority to tell people that this is necessarily the only reasonable conclusion they could come to.

 

[coastie]

I can't decide. I have seen good arguments on both sides. I personally *believe* that human life begins at conception, but I don't have the authority to tell people that this is necessarily the only reasonable conclusion they could come to.

Seebs, you're a good guy.

I tend to believe that if a scientific conclusion can't be reached on a value assessment regarding human life we should error on the side of safety.

Why take a chance if you can't determine whether or not the gun is loaded?

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by seebs
I would agree wholeheartedly if I had never met people who, after much consideration, had concluded that a zygote wasn't a "person". When there's room for serious debate about whether or not a given lump of protoplasm is a "person", then I don't want laws involved.

I find it scary that individual persons or just parents can decide whether a fetus s a person or not. I believe that this is a matter that MUST be dealt with by the law. I do not want any select few deciding if a fetus is a person or not. That is just really scary. There has to be a standard that is developed. I mean do we really want a couple of people making a decision that one fetus is a human then another small group says another fetus in the same stage of reproduction is not? Think about the ramifications of that. unfortunately that is what we have today.

blackhawk

 

[seebs]

Blackhawk: The problem here is, for the law to decide, we have to find an answer that everyone can agree is *clearly* morally correct. Otherwise, the law *is* unjust; better, in such a case, to leave people to face their moral decisions using whatever guidance they have.

 

[seebs]

Coastie: I generally agree, but I don't think that my morals, or anyone's, should be enshrined as *law*. Morals are between you and God, not between you and society. Society's concern should be "can society keep running with this", and society should stay clear of anything *remotely* debatable.

I've seen convincing arguments for definitions of life anywhere from "it's essentially murder to use birth control" to "a baby that can't yet track moving objects isn't a person". I don't have any way of telling them apart; I can't detect souls.

Given that, I favor a legal definition of "life" fairly close to "viability". I personally suspect that the line is fairly close to conception - but indeed, who mourns the zygotes that never attach to the uterine lining? Most people don't know they exist. Still, conception seems like a good point to me... But I don't *know*, and thus, I would rather encourage people to make their own moral decisions.

We *have* a law right now; obviously, merely being "the law" will not convince anyone of moral rectitude. Changing the law won't change this; we'll just change who believes the law is wrong.

I think we'd do better to spend more time teaching people about alternatives, and encouraging them to consider them, and (for instance) reforming the adoption system, than pushing to have abortion outlawed.

After all, Christian morals teach us that all sorts of things are immoral, but I hope most of us can see why a law requiring people to have no other gods would be an unjust law.

 

[Thunderchild]

A rather nice analogy Susan.

Induced abortion (rather than the spontaneous variety) certainly is a matter of "disposing" of an innocent who just happens to be unwanted.

There must of course be some allowance made for the occasions, rare though they be, where attempting to carry a pregnancy to term would endanger the mother.

I have difficulty in understanding why people equate planned parenthood with abortion though. The whole concept of planned parenthood is based on preventing a pregnancy from occurring before the person wants a child. And yes, that does involve counselling to wait until the time is right to have sex in the first place.

 

[coastie]

Coastie: I generally agree, but I don't think that my morals, or anyone's, should be enshrined as *law*. Morals are between you and God, not between you and society. Society's concern should be "can society keep running with this", and society should stay clear of anything *remotely* debatable.

However, murder is wrong. That being said, killing an unborn baby is no less murder than killing an innocent young child. This is not as much a moral judgement as a value assessment.

Value: Do we as a people value human life? Is a baby not a human? If not what is the baby, and when do we consider it to be worthy of the right to live. How selfish it is for a mother to say "This is my body, I can do whatever I want with it." when it is painfully obvious that there is another body inside of her?

Now ask "what if?" Some valid What if questions that we have acted upon:

What if terrorists attack again? So we beef up security.
What if the nuclear power plant has a meltdown? So we make 15 foot thick lead re-enforced cement walls containing it.
What if I get AIDS? So we prepare for the worst by using prtotection.
What if the baby is a human? So we kill it because it's guilty until proven innocent because that is much more convenient.

Seebs... all laws are based on the concept of Right and Wrong. When we start veering away from that path is when we start treading on some incredibly dangerous ground.

in Christ,
Zach