A mother's love

[guido911]

Here is another heart-wrenching story that will surely offend you pro-choicers out there:

http://www.khon2.com/news/local/6879367.html

[sgrizzle]

Pro-choice or pro-abortion?

This isn't a political story, making it so cheapens it.

[pmcalk]

How wonderful for her that she lives in a free society that allows her to make such a brave, heart-wrenching choice, that she ultimately has control over her body, and no one can tell her differently.

[waterboy]

Certainly not offended. Surprised, yes. She had an obligation to her existing family. But it was her choice. Funny isn't it...she had a choice. Why you think anyone would be offended says more about you than you think.

[NellieBly]

It doesn't offend me. I support her ... what's it called? Let me think of the word -- oh yeah, her CHOICE. I applaud her choice and I rejoice in the fact that she has a choice.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Pro-choice or pro-abortion?

This isn't a political story, making it so cheapens it.

I agree with you totally, but that hasn't kept our regular chorus of pro-choicers from chiming in...

[cannon_fodder]

Its clear the purpose was not to post the story, but to start a little jab on abortion.  So the story is really irrelevant. Did we go over this before?  

Oh yeah, we did:

quote:I wrote in February
Per abortion laws, I give no credence to the religious nor moral arguments for banning abortion. Governments should not be in the business of promoting my, or anyone else's moral or religious code. If they do, it ceases to have any meaning as an act you are forced to do can hardly be seen as a servitude towards your god(s). not to mention the obvious issue of having to decide who's god(s) and morals are the correct ones.

I am also, , generally, against governmental interference on most levels. The ability to interfere is the ability to chose whom to favor and whom to repress and the opportunity to interfere with my constitutionally protected rights.

However, I also feel that any creature capable of thought deserves protection from wantonly unnecessary pain and suffering. This extends from Humans to Chickens to Frogs. Note the wording of "wantonly unnecessary pain," if a chicken has some pain while being slaughtered for consumption - so be it. But if a procedure is offered that accomplishes the same goal without torturing the bird, I would prefer that.

Being alive is defined as having the ability to reproduce on a cellular level. The cells in my nose are able to reproduce as are the cells of the plant on my desk - they are alive. However, the wood cells of my desk are no longer able to divide and are thus, not living. The question is not when does life begin - but when we are going to afford PROTECTION for that life.

The little world of belief's I have created for myself would indicate protection is afforded when a creature can think. In a fetus, that would mean brain functions on the level of being able to react to surroundings with some sort of spacial awareness (I think, therefor I am). However, my argument would only afford this life the same protection I would the chicken without further examination.

Further protection is provided to humans because it is essential to a functioning society. The most ancient of tribal laws  provide a good guide for what people have to do in order to live together in a community and not destroy themselves. If we steel from one another, lie in court or kill each other things get ugly (likewise, life is easier if we all worship and believe the exact same thing without question).

In addition to being essential a functioning society we have more recently attributed certain protections to people by virtue of them being human. The idea being that all humans are an advanced race capable of complex thought. The advanced thought setting us apart from animals and making us worthy of protection.

Thus, a fetus should be granted protection when it is capable of advanced thought (ie - self awareness) or when doing so is essential to a functioning society. Society has and is functioning with the current abortion laws in place.

THEREFOR, protection should be granted to an unborn child when they are capable of human-like thought. While it is INCREDIBLY hard to find unbiased information on this, it seems a fetus has a developed brain around 32 weeks. Similarly, some children born at this point have a chance of survival without intervention... which is the current status quo.  Thus, I am forced to label myself the somewhat oxymoronical anti-abortion and pro-choice.

So there's my attempt at approaching what is most often viewed as a moral question on a logical basis.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[iplaw]

quote:Per abortion laws, I give no credence to the religious nor moral arguments for banning abortion. Governments should not be in the business of promoting my, or anyone else's moral or religious code.

And you never answered me about this part.

[cannon_fodder]

You have a good point, but I'm afraid we are bordering on a exercise in semantics at that point IP.  I would argue we are not imposing a moral value but instead instituting a logically formulated set of values designed to ensure harmony in our tribe.  Pure semantics.

I guess what I was trying to get at is the government should not advocate a moral position simply because someone holds it.  It should have some reason and logic behind its dictated morals.  I was also trying to imply that forcing ones morals on another does not somehow make you, nor them, a better person.

You raised a very good point and it stands, I hope my point was not lost due to my linguistic imprecision.

[guido911]

Oh I am sure that loving mother was all about advocating pro-choice and favoring abortion rights.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Oh I am sure that loving mother was all about advocating pro-choice and favoring abortion rights.

Kinda' backfired on you didn't it? If you hadn't made that snide remark someone might have believed you didn't have an ulterior motive. I doubt you have any more idea than anyone else on this site what her motives were.

[tim huntzinger]

No, she clearly wanted to be used as a political football.  Obviously.

[guido911]

Waterboy:  What are you talking about, "back fired"?

Do you think pro-abortionist folks retreating to a position that she "chose" not to have an abortion is somehow a positive statement of  the "choice" movement? Had her pregnancy occurred before 1973, she would not have had a "choice" one way or the other since abortion was unlawful. The term "choice" is just some sanitized term used by your kind to soften the true barbarity of the practice of abortion.

As far as the point I was making with this post, any efforts to turn this woman's heroic decision (which was the point), as somehow a statement on your glorious pro-abortionist movement is flat stupid.    

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?ac0fd51f-8ab4-452d-82bc-29ed95e78430

Incidentally, I guess you other pro-abortionist folks (PM, Nellie) out there were offended. I mean, really, here is a Christian woman who never considered abortion as a solution. What gall she had. Did she not know she could have saved herself?  

Oh, and Tim, funny how you started showing up shortly after aox disappeared...

[rwarn17588]

Guido, don't get pi**y if the link you posted generates not the reaction that you intended.

It's a free country. That means your ideas can be applauded or derided. We're under no obligation to bow to your wisdom.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Waterboy:  What are you talking about, "back fired"?

Do you think pro-abortionist folks retreating to a position that she "chose" not to have an abortion is somehow a positive statement of  the "choice" movement? Had her pregnancy occurred before 1973, she would not have had a "choice" one way or the other since abortion was unlawful. The term "choice" is just some sanitized term used by your kind to soften the true barbarity of the practice of abortion.

Of course she would have had a choice.  Not all states made abortion illegal in 1973.  If she had the money to travel she would have had a choice.

quote:

As far as the point I was making with this post, any efforts to turn this woman's heroic decision (which was the point), as somehow a statement on your glorious pro-abortionist movement is flat stupid.    

A decision implies that a person has a choice.  Would it had really been heroic if she had no choice?  How can someone be moral (and hence a true Christian)  if they have no choice to behave immorally?

quote:

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?ac0fd51f-8ab4-452d-82bc-29ed95e78430

Incidentally, I guess you other pro-abortionist folks (PM, Nellie) out there were offended. I mean, really, here is a Christian woman who never considered abortion as a solution. What gall she had. Did she not know she could have saved herself?  

Wrong.  Not offended at all.  I truly believe the woman to be heroic.  Incidentally, I knew a woman who had a very similar death.  She had breast cancer, and lived just long enough to deliver her baby.  I believe she made the right choice for herself.  I couldn't begin to tell others what decision they should make in that circumstance.  Do you really have the gall to tell people what is the right choice in those circumstances?  FYI, in Judaism, the woman's decision would be considered wrong--you never sacrifice an existing life for one that may not come to exist.

quote:
Oh, and Tim, funny how you started showing up shortly after aox disappeared...