This up comming weekend

Categories: Friends, News, Politics
Comments: 14 Comments
Published on: January 18, 2006

Well I was hoping to go to DC on Friday afternoon after work. But those plans fell though. I will still be going down, but I will be picked up early Monday morning (I am going down for the annual March for Life), and comming back late Monday night. I promise I will take my camra so I can get pictures, and I will upload them when I get back. I have already let work know that I am taking a “personal day”. So my weekend has opened up so I will be going skiing with some friends on Saterday. I tried to snowboard 2 years ago, but my knee did not like that, I kept falling over and hitting my knee against the ice. I hope skiing is not as painfull, as when I tried to go snowboarding.

  1. Rob says:

    I had considered going. But the slogan “No Exceptions, No Compromise” made me realize I didn’t wish to be associated with this group.

    I had someone try to explain to me that because of medical science, women never need to have an abortion. When I pointed out things like fallopian-tube and extrauterine pregnancy (I didn’t go into an exhaustive list of medical conditions that would require an abortion), I was told “Well, she chose to become pregnant. It’s her fault, and she needs to accept the consequences of her actions.”

    I hope things go well for you.

  2. Rob I do understand in the case of Life or Death of the mother (but I do belive that those are very rare now, and I am sure that they only make up about 1% to 5% of all abortions, I know I could be wrong with how much the make up but you know what I mean), also this is the LCMS postion also, see here (this is a link, I know it does not look like one but just click here to go to the page) for the synods statement on abortion (Also see this link for a further defence of the Synod’s position). When I think “No Exceptions, No Compromise” I think about abortion on demand, I would say no “No Exceptions, No Compromise” Now when the mothers life is in danger then she has an option, but also No greater love has anyone then one that lays down their life for another, but that now is in the womans court. Also with the fallopian-tube (and like) I don’t think the mother has a choice, the child would not be able to brought to term the child could never survive so we are at a point where 1 will die (abortion) or both will die (tring to bring the child to term) so we must have an abortion done there, no need in lossing 2 lives (I know I am not giving a woman a choice here eather but…)
    When I talk against abortion I am always talking about abortion on demand.
    I know my Roman Catholic friends will not agree with me but…

  3. Rob says:

    I was very careful to not criticize you, but rather explain my own reasons.

    I don’t know the exact number of abortions that are for the life or health of the mother. It would be an interesting statistic. Both sides would do their best to screw up any attempt to find out a real number.

    The person I talked to believed that a woman should die rather than terminate a pregnancy — even if the baby had no chance of being born.

    Being typical me, I have a very nuanced position. I don’t ever see anything as simmple.

    I see myself as “Pro-Life,” but after surfing the web looking at the standard definitions of both sides, I cannot call myself either “Pro-Life” or “Pro-Choice” with any semblance of honesty.


  4. Are you telling me this person belived that 2 should die, does he belive 2 dieing is better then only one dieing? Unreal, is that person mental? (sorry I should not pass jugdement like that, but…)
    Yes it is sad when any one dies, and it even sadder when you are in the position where you have to decided between one of 2 lives, and even worse when you are forced to cause one to die to prevent others to die.<>br/>
    I do think we should err on the side that perserves life.

  5. Also I did not put this in my other reply (I wanted that one to stand alone) I do know you were not criticizing me.
    I understand you being in the nuanced position. I think most people find themselvs there at one time or another.

  6. Rob says:

    I know you know, but I like to be careful. Online communication is a lot less redundant than an eyeball QSO.

    Everyone finds themselves in a nuanced position occasionally. I seem to be a galactic black hole of nuanced positions.

    It’s annoying, even to me.

    New Horizons probe is doing well, BTW.

  7. Max says:

    I agree that there should definitely be an exception when the mothers life is in danger. Although then you’ll get into situations when women will hurt themselves to qualify for such an exception. I think that the problem is that both sides should be working together to end unwanted pregnancies rather than bicker about abortion. Abortion, in one way or another, will always happen. Even if it’s going to become illegal, people will still go to underground doctors or dirty hangers. Both groups should work together on a compromise. Unfortunately, like politics, everyone is interesting in making sure they yell the loudest, instead of having honest debates, honest facts, and real compromises.

  8. I would say that a woman that would hurt herself to get an abortion, has other issues that need to be resoved.
    I will admit I would love to see the day where abortion is illegal (except in the case of the mothers life is in danger) and you are right there are those that will not talk, untill eather 1) All abortions are legal or 2) free abortions for all.

  9. Max says:

    Sad isn’t it. Personally, I think laws should be just like software – go for the 95% solution. If the law covers 95% of cases, it’s a good law. Have the remaining 5% deliberate on a case-by-case basis without fear of setting some precedent. Unfortunately, the legal system is a perpetually growing machine, it needs things to be explicit. More explicit means more laws and rulings designed for those ultra high minorities of all cases (over 60 white woman slips on sidewalk within 100 feet of store can sue for damage, etc). Similar stuff with the tax system and our giant bureaucracy system, like department of homeland security. Did you know FEMA had to ask permission from DHS to respond to Katrina? wtf? One more thing about bureaucracy… much less responsibility. “Oh I just stamped this paper, I didn’t know it cut funding, talk to the person that typed up the paper”. It makes things easier to fall through the cracks and hide money trails because no one person is responsible for anything. If we can’t account for hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq and other places, that’s an Enron-like disaster! I can see why they want that bureaucracy – saving their own ass, the buck keeps being passed around.

  10. Sean says:

    As a Roman Catholic friend who is pro-life with none of the usual exceptions of rape, incest, or “health of th mother”, I have to put my two cents in, which you may find surprising. Actually, we do recognize something called the principle of double effect. Which means that, for example, a pregnant women with uterine cancer may have her uterus removed. This would be done to cure a serious pathology. It would have the unintended, but double effect of killing the unborn child. Removing a uterus is a very different procedure than an abortion. But in both cases the fetus will end up dead. But one is intended and morally impermissible. In the other case, the death of the fetus is unintended, not desired, but unavoidable and very sad. But permissible. There are some heroic self-sacrificing women who will forgo procedures for this and certain other conditions to try and deliver their baby alive at great risk to their life and health. I admire them. But I do not hold anybody to that heroic standard. Nor does the Catholic Church.

    But to perform just an abortion? A procedure for which there is no medical justification? No. There is where I and the Church have to say no.

    Now, where and how to apply the principle of double effect is the sharp end of this particular knife. There are four conditions that must be met for a particular action to be permissible:

    1. The action contemplated must be in itself either ethically good or ethically indifferent.

    2. The evil consequence not be directly intended.

    3. The good result not be a direct causal result of the evil result.

    4. The good result must be “proportionate to” the evil result

    So, if the intention is to “end the pregnancy” it is never permissible. If the intent is to save the woman from uterine cancer (which is the usual example I’ve seen), it is permissible.

    Apparently there is some disagreement among moral theologians about ectopic pregnancies. Not having a medical background, I don’t know.

    As for me, “No Exceptions, No Compromise” on abortions is OK. Because to me a pregnant woman having uterine cancer and having her uterus removed does not constitute abortion to me. Such a woman does not go to an abortion clinic. She is not wanting to end her pregnancy. She is trying to stay alive. Ending the pregnancy is not the aim of the procedure.

    However, that being said, there are those that try to milk this principle by saying making abortions permissible for “the health of the mother”. By which they mean that its OK to directly perform an abortion… to do nothing other than abort the fetus. This is never permissible. And they interpret “the health of the mother” as anything… “oh, she’s depressed. Get an abortion”. No way.

  11. Sean says:

    I want to clarify my previous comment. I said that there is some disagreement about the applicability of the principle of double effect to ectopic pregnancies. The vast majority view ectopic pregnancies as falling under this principle. There are a few moral theologians who are questioning this however. Not being a moral theologian, or at best, only an armchair one… I think ectopic pregnancies do fall under the double effect principle.

  12. Max says:

    Well thought out point. I believe that increase of abortions is partly to blame on casual sex – people are forgetting that having sex should always mean getting pregnant (even if there are items you can use). The problem with any issue like this is that there are things you should do and things you should make laws for. While I certainly recognize the iron fist of the church-of-old and its integration or replacement of real government, this country tries to pretend the church does not run things. I would never ever want to limit the way any church or religion functions within their community – it’s their right to do what they believe in. I just don’t believe that their views should limit people that don’t share their views – double standard and all. The conditions you mentioned are very subjective. They talk about relative view of ethics and good, which are very subjective. There are plenty of women with unintentional pregnancies that would argue with you that their lives would end (not physically, but socially and financially) if they were to have the child. You can’t have a consensus on what an emergency situation is. A woman could be financially ruined or socially outcast if she is not allowed to stop the pregnancy (that could have resulted of her rape or other means). If she’s in such circumstances, what guarantees are there that the baby will survive anyway? What about those parents that beat and kill their children? Would they have done such actions if they loved their kids? Something to think about – abortion now instead of murder of a well-developed being later (though this could be expanded to an explicit ban of all war by the church and I don’t see many anti-war protests by religious people – killing a fetus is bad, killing a grown person isn’t a priority). I agree with the idea that abortions must decrease, since I believe many of them are caused by carelessness not tragedy (rape, etc). I think pro- and anti- camps can both unite on the anti-unwanted-pregnancy side and create an education campaign. With fewer unwanted pregnancies and even less abortions, would it really be such a subject if only several abortions were performed in the country. The trouble is that both camps want to heat up the issue – that’s how they get financial contributions. Sad but true and both sides are in on it. The law pro-life camp is pushing for is to make abortion illegal (with some radical wings suggesting ignoring health of the mother). If abortion will indeed become illegal, then those people that should have had an abortion, will now have their lives ruined without the ability to do something about it. Perhaps some research could reveal that an aborted baby (if early enough) could be safely removed and grown in a test-tube (or however it works)? I’m looking for middle ground here, but having abortions be illegal and having legal abortions at any stage of the pregnancy are both irresponsible. I’ll end on the note that I don’t think those pregnant women that have abortions explicitly want the fetus to die. They mostly want to end the pregnancy. If there’s a way for the fetus to live outside of the mother, I think many of them would be relieved. Unfortunately, these decisions could lead to other careless acts.

  13. Sean says:

    Well, I’ll admit to being one of those radicals that wants a law to end abortion with no exception for “health”. My examples of treatments for uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancies are not abortions from a medical, legal, or moral standpoint. They are physically and medically different procedures and done with a different intent.

    I don’t think anyone should have the choice to end an innocent human life.

    That being said, I agree with you that most pregnant women are probably not explicitly wanting the child to die. Heck, most of them are told that its just “a blob of tissue”. They don’t know and an active attempt is made to keep as many from knowing as possible by the abortion industry. By outlawing abortion, the intent is to stop the murder. Enforcing it, to me, would entail legal sanctions against those who perform and assist in abortions… not primarily against the women.

    But I also admit that simply making abortion illegal is not enough. We also have to convince people that it is a child not a blob of tissue, and that abortion is the killing of that child… that the question is not one of having a choice but what exactly are you choosing between?

    We have to convince people that abortion is wrong and reduce the number of abortions that way as well as tackling the legality aspect.

    I have no doubt that both will happen. Support for abortion is continuing to wane in this country. As more people are convinced that abortion is wrong, the legality of it will fall. The end of Roe vs. Wade will be a lagging indicator of the public’s belief that abortion is wrong.

    But I’m an optimist. 🙂

  14. Max says:

    I agree that pro-abortion distort the truth as much as anti-abortion groups. However, abortion has always been around, always will be around, whether or not it’s illegal (see: prohibition, drugs, prostitution). Interesting how you don’t account for any exceptions, I’d think that it’s better to have one living person with an abortion than two dead people. It’s impossible for me to see how the same people that abhor such a pracitice would rather see the woman die just to keep their beliefs in tact. I think many will disagree with you. I’d like to hear your thoughts on uniting pro and anti abortion groups on lowering unwanted pregnancies through education and condoms (and other devices and methods). I also don’t see any evidence that there’s waning support for Roe v. Wade, do you have any sources? If you were to take a poll right now where the choice was abortion always, and abortion never, no exceptions in both cases, I’d think more people would chose to have abortion always. Things are never black and white though, which is why abortion, in some form, will and should always be legal.

Welcome , today is Friday, June 14, 2024