Journal Allen Zadr's Journal: Ellem's Abortion Journal - What I think. Plus Why 17
I have a big problem with Anti-Abortion laws. They simply cannot protect woman's rights, they are specifically meant to deny a pregnant woman her rights. This, I cannot accept.
Then folks talk about the great exception...
The life of the mother.
I hear about how all these laws do or will have an "exception" for the "life of the mother". What about the dabilitating injury of the mother? What about the "general non-specific health risk" of the mother? What about a case where a woman has a disease, and that there is a chance that this disease could be adversely affected by pregnancy? There are a number of illnesses that are affected by hormones. Crohn's is a fairly common one. Chances are low, for some, high for others. Either way, it's VERY RARE that the LIFE of the mother would be at stake. The ability of the mother to live on without a major bowel resection, a life of taking liquid syringe form of whatever nutrients their bowel no longer absorbs, and maybe even a colostomy... Those are at risk.
So, someone may naturally say - 'oh, well, a Crohn's exception would be important.' Or worse, 'screw her, she knows she has Crohn's, she should be extra careful.' But the problem isn't just Crohn's. It isn't just bowel issues. There are mental issues that are also affected by hormonal changes. The law, once enacted, doesn't give a shit about how someone may be adversely affected - just by the pregnancy (forget about the whole, after the baby is born thing). If you can't stay healthy through the pregnancy - what right does your state have to tell you that you are not allowed to treat your health issue. How many drugs, and other chemical cures are denied, simply because a woman is or may be pregnant?
That means, that such decisions and determinations need to be a decision between a doctor and a potential mother. Just like any other medical treatment. This is not a place for the state.
A lot of extremely intelligent people work on the whole "Pro Life" side, but never have any of them put in a set of exceptions that will 1) create a safe environment for women and 2) will not be bypassed easily by simply finding the right Doctor.
Finally, if you a Christian who believes in the whole religious aspect, may I remind you that the Apostle Matthew suggested that we not judge. That is to say, let God sort it out. If that Doctor, or that pregnant woman committed murder in the eyes of God... then God will deal with them accordingly.
I'm from the "Ronngg Question" constituency (Score:2)
Any answer that doesn't start with questions like: Why are we here? and What shall we do with our sexuality? isn't really going to drive the dialogue in a useful direction. I chalk the noise in our culture up to capitalism: too many people finding a career in maintaining this issue in its current, messy condition.
[1] I am not dealing with the edge cases of sexual crime here.
Sinning (Score:2)
My reading of the New Testament went way beyond that. It seemed to me that judging your fellow man made you an usrper of the Role of God and Jesus- in essence committing the greatest sin of all- mistaking yourself as a God. The humbleness which Jesus preached so loudly and consistently throughout Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John seems totally lost on the Christian Conservative Wing of the Republicans and anti-abortion movement. Jesus mi
Re:Sinning (Score:2)
that said , Abortion is allowed whilst the Foetus is still "Water" , IE: the first trimester , in any case. This was taken from the passage which declares monetary restitution instead of the death penalty for injuring a pregnant woman in such a way as to kill the unborn child.
Also at any time the foetus may be aborted if it will kill the mother.
The me view (Score:2)
However , I feel it is the mother (and fathers) right to decide.
Morning after pills should be more easily available also , so to avoid the whole sticky wicket (though some people will find a problem with them)
Abortions however should be wholly allowable in any case where the pregnancy could seriously affect the mothers health , either physically or mentally .
A currently living being takes precedence over a not yet living thing
going nowhere (Score:1)
1) Demonize/caricaturize the opposition. "... they are specifically meant to deny a pregnant woman her rights." When in doubt, resort to hysterics. Don't question your arrival at ridiculous assumptions. Believe without question, nevermind how bizarre it would be if really true, that pro-lifers hate women, are out to get them, and specifically deny them their rights. You see, with pro-lifers, it's not so much about abortion as it is
Re:going nowhere (Score:2)
1) The law does exactly this, because the only exception is threat of life. Not threat of health. Show me otherwise, and I will apologize profusely. If you can't, then I'm right.
2) If an intruder comes into my home and proceeds to cause non life threatening harm to my family members, I will kill that person. Nobody will deny me the right to do this. I may have to sit in court, and explain it, but my rights do not get trumped by the intruders. If a fetus causes non-life threatening harm to my famil
interesting (Score:2)
Cool. By the same token, when your neighbor murders the children across the street, you don't have to worry, because God will get him when he's dead.
Re:interesting (Score:2)
My interpretation may be wrong. I interpret it to mean if I am not in a situation, I cannot fathom what is really occurring. That, in turn is the opposite of what this law does. It forces guilt, forces inaction, until a situation becomes life threatening. That leaves no room for the judge to interpret the edge-cases, where the health of the woman is effected. That's it. Leave room.
Still, given the choice of making all situations as wrong, without giving leeway, I'd much rather have the confidence t
Big Yawn (Score:2)
Once you accept that the child has rights, then you have to balance them, just like doctors sometimes do in other cases, such as with Siamese twins. It's not a reason to not make abortion in the general sense illegal, it's an obstacle to over
Re:Big Yawn (Score:2)
That's a lot of words for a yawn.
The post does not assume that a fetus has zero rights. It assumes that the Dakota law, as written, does not even attempt to strike a balance. It strikes a slavery deal between mother and child, until birth or threat of death. I'm merely suggesting, that unless it also includes threat of medical harm, the law cannot strike a balance.
As an obstacle to overcome, when the only exception given is threat of death, there is no leeway left. Clearly, the Siamese Twin thing
Re:Big Yawn (Score:2)
Like I said, it was a big yawn. Though really, that wasn't a lot of words, by my standards.
The post does not assume that a fetus has zero rights.
And I didn't say it did.
[The South Dakota law] strikes a slavery deal between mother and child, until birth or threat of death.
No, a slavery deal is what legal abortion is. When you subjugate someone to the degree that you deny their unalienable rights, even their humanity, that's slavery.
As an obstacle to overcome, when the only
Re:Big Yawn (Score:2)
While Peter said he would never deny Jesus, perhaps the thought itself would never have occurred to him if Jesus himself didn't say it would be so. He was certainly dismayed by how easily it came to him. In that, I would like to think
Re:Big Yawn (Score:2)
And I am quite sure you're full of it. In fact, Jesus set up pretty clear guidelines for telling a brother in Christ that he is committing sins. He'd not have done so i
Re:Big Yawn (Score:2)
In endangering his life , could it be seen as possible suicide , Suicide being a Grave sin if you are perfectly healthy in your rational mind.
Re:Big Yawn (Score:2)
Acts is the book - I think he was imprisoned as a co-conspiritor (though it may not have been immediately - not willing to re-read that part now)... in any case, he escaped. At the time of denial, he had a fairly good idea that Jesus was going to die, and knew that he, also, would be in some danger. Though danger does not automatically excuse us from doing what is right (regardless of religion). There are degrees of danger, and levels of self-preservation though.
In any case, he had put himself in thi
Re: Bible Study (Score:2)
Matthew 18:15-17
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
I agree with this - though, note that if my broth
Re: Bible Study (Score:2)
Oops, sorry, I should have mentioned this earlier: you're reading a bad translation. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts (including both of the most important manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) do not include the phrase "against you" (eis se). Good modern translations do not include that either (except perh