View Single Post
Old 08-13-2008, 06:07 PM   #290
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrovant View Post
phil, I'm curious about specifics of your abortion views. Do you feel the same for any stage of pregnancy? How do you feel about things like the morning-after pill?

Also, how do you feel about execution, or something like 'pulling the plug' of someone on life support?
Mont...thanks for the window of opportunity, here, to address the
related issues, and some of the logical errors I think some people make.

Firstly, I'll state, point blank, my position on abortion (in the context of
what I regard reality to be...not my "opinion" as it were):

An unborn child is a human life, just as human as an adult. The unborn
child has his/her own DNA, and, if healthy, will progress through all
stages of development that all other humans do. The only difference
is that the unborn child is in his/her earliest stages of development,
and that the unborn child is physically internal to the mother, and
connected by the umbilical cord and placenta.

To kill this unborn child is just as much the killing of a live human being
as killing an 8-year old child, or a 55-year old adult. In fact, one may
argue that it is worse, since you have truncated the life of that human
being in that person's earliest stage.

Abortion is permissible in only in the case of what is referred to as the
"indirect abortion", meaning that some measure needs to be taken to
save the life of the mother, or to save the mother from some serious
illness or deformity, and the death of the unborn child is unavoidable.
Morally, every reasonable effort needs to be taken to save the life of
the unborn child, too, if possible.

Cases of rape and incest cause the additional moral problem of the woman
becoming pregnant against her will. It is problematic, because this does
not, in any way, reduce the humanity of the unborn child. This is what
makes rape such a terrible crime, because it can result in the
creation of a new life. In all other cases, even if a woman does not
intend to become pregnant, she is still, implicitly, consenting to the
creation of a child, by the act (men are not by any way absolved from
responsibility on this either).

Pregnancy due to rapes and incest are very rare. Personally, I believe
that a huge step toward alleviating this problem is to educate women
about receiving a cervical flush within 12 hours of the rape, in order to
prevent a potential pregnancy. Some doctors already do this, but mass
education on this ought to be necessary.

NOW...as far as some of those other issues you brought up:

Death Penalty...I have wavered on this over the years, but lean a bit
toward the pro-death penalty side. "What?? And you call yourself
pro-life ??" I have heard numerous times. Here's the BIG MAJOR
DIFFERENCE...the unborn child is 100 % innocent. The murderer is
guilty of a crime, moreover the crime of killing another human being.
It is not "murder" to execute a convicted murderer. It is an "execution".
(In much the same way that to force someone to pay money is called
"extortion", except that when it is a punishment for a crime, it is called
a "fine".) Recently, I have heard it argued that being pro-capital
punishment is actually the more "pro-life" position. By placing execution
as the punishment for first-degree-murder, society is showing that it
regards life as that important that the person who commits the
murder should forfeit one's own life (as opposed having a person's
life being worth "5 years" or "10 years" or "rehabilitation").

Pulling the Plug...Unless some person has a living will, there is not a
moral obligation to keep a person alive with "extraordinary means" (such
as a lung pumping machine). That is, if the person has reached the
point where their own body will expire on its own, without such high-tech,
that may be the natural course. However, when "reasonable means",
such as basic medical care and feeding, are what is needed to save the
person's life, it is a moral imperative to take those means. It is a whole
other issue where the line is between "reasonable means" and "ordinary
means".

Killing in war...This is another dicey issue (especially with the War in Iraq
going on). Killing in national defense is also permissible, provided that the
army at war is taking careful measures to avoid civilian population wherever
possible (which I believe the United States tries to do, and we severely
go after members of our military who clearly violate this principle). Saying
"no civilian death" is not a reasonable position to take, since then, our
country would never engage in a military action...in which case our
position as a nation would be to always stand by an do nothing
whenever injustice, killing, and human violation occurs anywhere in
the world, which would ultimately be a very "anti-life" position to take.

The morning after pill...RU-486 is a post-conception process, and is,
technically, killing a person in the earliest stages of life. Thus, based on
this fact, I am against it according to principle. This, like abortion itself,
will never go away, because it is already so deeply intrenched into our
society.

My ultimate opinion of abortion is that it exists because humanity has
gotten very morally lazy. We are resistent to taking responsibility for
our actions both in terms of refraining from reckless behaviors (i.e. sex
out of marriage/sex before one is ready to take care of children), and
bearing the responsibility of unborn children once they exist. Thus,
since our natural inclinations are to engage our desires, without having
to take on the corresponding responsibilities for them, we have collectively
chosen to turn our heads away from the humanity of the unborn child.
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote