invention_45
New member
I'll just take one of these for the moment.
There was a day when the same flap over abortion was instead over birth control pills. The religious folks argued that these pills ended a life that would have otherwise been.
OK, this is very true. It does end a life that would otherwise have been, as an abortion does. This argues that we should outlaw birth control pills and any other form of contraceptive now in use. Frankly, even the religiously-recommended "rhythm method" is just a sneaky way of attempting to accomplish the same goal, denying life that might have been. But was accepted back then anyway.
Now I have to ask why a religious organization would condone the prevention of a life by "rhythm" but not condone the prevention of life by medicine. The obvious answer is that the "rhythm" method doesn't work very well. But sometimes it does. So what they were saying is that sometimes it's OK to prevent a life that might have been.
Clearly, the act of preventing a life wasn't distasteful to them. It's more like a RELIABLE way to prevent a life was distasteful to them. Truthfully, if the very act of preventing a life were what they were trying to stop, the religious folks would have ordered their flock to constantly um...well, you get the idea.
No, the pious and valiant protection of precious life isn't what the problem was. The real problem was that if the religious stopped having children and rearing them religiously, they might go out of business.
And it remains so today.
The pro-life camp wrings its collective hands over the (unproven) pain of an abortion. But it gets a little quiet when it comes to the years of pain and suffering of a truly unwanted child. All of a sudden, it's no longer any of their business.
That is the real name of that tune.
Now, if you are religious woman or are in a completely religious family, and you make up your mind that you are going to forgo an abortion because of your beliefs and are going to do whatever it takes to add a child, more power to you.
But if you are NOT in that category, and you do NOT want to damage your body by having a child, then that should be up to YOU, not the law.
So when the law decides it is going to prohibit something that personal to you and force you to do something that potentially damaging to yourself against your will, suing is the thing to do.
Now, I don't particularly care for the concept of abortion. Nothing about it is pretty. I would consider altering my views (though I'm not a woman, will never be pregnant, and have little standing to enforce them) IF I can be shown in a scientific manner that, after a certain gestational age, abortion causes fetal pain that cannot be reliably prevented. In that case, I would favor restricting abortions to earlier gestational ages and making it a mother's life/child's life issue between then and actual birth.
The exception would be a pregnant woman who had so little access to medical supervision that she didn't know (it happens) she was pregnant until after the gestational age in question, in which case she would decide then and there.
As I said before, legislators are driven by the winds of hype. When I see them driven by reason, I might then be more suspect of the courts' intervention. But that wind's still blowing hard, so I don't expect that to be soon.
There was a day when the same flap over abortion was instead over birth control pills. The religious folks argued that these pills ended a life that would have otherwise been.
OK, this is very true. It does end a life that would otherwise have been, as an abortion does. This argues that we should outlaw birth control pills and any other form of contraceptive now in use. Frankly, even the religiously-recommended "rhythm method" is just a sneaky way of attempting to accomplish the same goal, denying life that might have been. But was accepted back then anyway.
Now I have to ask why a religious organization would condone the prevention of a life by "rhythm" but not condone the prevention of life by medicine. The obvious answer is that the "rhythm" method doesn't work very well. But sometimes it does. So what they were saying is that sometimes it's OK to prevent a life that might have been.
Clearly, the act of preventing a life wasn't distasteful to them. It's more like a RELIABLE way to prevent a life was distasteful to them. Truthfully, if the very act of preventing a life were what they were trying to stop, the religious folks would have ordered their flock to constantly um...well, you get the idea.
No, the pious and valiant protection of precious life isn't what the problem was. The real problem was that if the religious stopped having children and rearing them religiously, they might go out of business.
And it remains so today.
The pro-life camp wrings its collective hands over the (unproven) pain of an abortion. But it gets a little quiet when it comes to the years of pain and suffering of a truly unwanted child. All of a sudden, it's no longer any of their business.
That is the real name of that tune.
Now, if you are religious woman or are in a completely religious family, and you make up your mind that you are going to forgo an abortion because of your beliefs and are going to do whatever it takes to add a child, more power to you.
But if you are NOT in that category, and you do NOT want to damage your body by having a child, then that should be up to YOU, not the law.
So when the law decides it is going to prohibit something that personal to you and force you to do something that potentially damaging to yourself against your will, suing is the thing to do.
Now, I don't particularly care for the concept of abortion. Nothing about it is pretty. I would consider altering my views (though I'm not a woman, will never be pregnant, and have little standing to enforce them) IF I can be shown in a scientific manner that, after a certain gestational age, abortion causes fetal pain that cannot be reliably prevented. In that case, I would favor restricting abortions to earlier gestational ages and making it a mother's life/child's life issue between then and actual birth.
The exception would be a pregnant woman who had so little access to medical supervision that she didn't know (it happens) she was pregnant until after the gestational age in question, in which case she would decide then and there.
As I said before, legislators are driven by the winds of hype. When I see them driven by reason, I might then be more suspect of the courts' intervention. But that wind's still blowing hard, so I don't expect that to be soon.
