Advance Liberty, Overturn Roe

"Advance Liberty, Overturn Roe"

This statement is positively Orwellian.

It is not true that "Roe ... by judicial fiat ... hallows killing the innocent as part of our Constitution."

Roe imposes a limit on the right of the state (and busybodies like the author) to intervene in the most intimate aspects of personal life and moral decision making. Limits on the rights and powers of the state are the basis of liberty. Reynolds understands neither morality nor liberty.

Not all pregnancies lead to live birth. About 15% are recorded as resulting in miscarriage, some estimate that if you include unrecorded miscarriages and fertilized eggs that never reach the stage of conception, that is attachment to the womb, 50% of fertilizations may lead to miscarriage. There are two points here. First, God takes care of their souls. Second, if the state gets to look into a woman's womb, can it anticipate pregnancy and look into a womb to make sure the best nutrition and technology are employed to increase survival? (Think Terri Schiavo.) Can it decide the public health care costs of birth defects provide justification for forced abortion?

Once you allow the state into the processes within a person's body, the brain will surely follow the womb, and someone will propose required brain scans to detect and imprison potential harm-doers. It will start with terrorists, but it won't stop there. In some states criminals are already compelled to give DNA samples. Brain scanning technology is not up to the task yet, but millions are spent every year on development. Is this what we want, a dictatorship that can go into the last refuge of an individual, their mind?

The example of Jesus is that his followers should teach, helping individuals to form their own conscience, not to pursue the powers of the state. He didn't seek laws or associate with the powerful. He could have come as a King if God had wished. Rather, Jesus first laid down the principle of the separation of Church and State. He refused to even defend his own life with the power of the sword, the ultimate expression of state power.

The more that Reynolds and other preaches direct themselves to political action, the more they energize the opposition and divide our country. There is less energy to devote to the mission of forming individual consciences, and the hearts of all are hardened against each other.

Reynolds not only is wrong on liberty, he is wrong on life, and he is wrong on salvation.

Stepping back from anti-abortion politics (let's not confuse if with being truly pro-life) would allow more attention to those measures proven most effective in reducing abortion.

Salvation is achieved through choice, not coercion. Focusing of coercive methods, Reynolds fails to promote salvation.

Is Reynolds a typical evangelical? I see nothing in here of the Good News.

I AGREE with those who say that a freshly fertilized ovum is not a human being. But they do not bite the bullet and concede that LATER in the pregnancy, the foetus is much more developed and deserves protection which can only be over-ridden by a woman's justified fear about her own health and life. And THAT decision cannot be made just by the woman and a doctor hired by her.
Society must be convinced that the urgency is real.

Later in the pregnancy, the foetus MUST have protection and the US errs grievously in allowing abortion for two trimesters as opposed to most European countries which allow only for one.

My second point is that this is not an issue which is OWNED by conservative Christians. Here is something from the Dalai Lama's Wikipedia page.

The Dalai Lama is generally opposed to abortion, although he has taken a nuanced position, as he explained to the New York Times:

"Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."

Note that the Dalai Lama is arguing for a small window of possibility of abortion. He is NOT arguing for a wide open door which the "if the woman and her doctor decide" doctrine amounts to.

I think conservative Christians should stop pretending that they are the only ones who care about morality in sex, the Buddha did too. And they should stop trying to ban all abortions from the conception on, in all fifty states. Try to be reasonable and show respect for well meaning pro-choicers and for people of other religions.
They could even look for co-operation from other religions.

IF THE ECONOMY IS IN DANGER ITS CAUSE OF THE BUSH MCCAIN FAILED POLICIES. AFTER 8 YEARS THE VERDICT IS IN---TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOESNT WORK! ONLY A FOOL COULD VOTE MORE OF THE SAME! YOU CANNOT HAVE PRIVATIZED PROFITS AND SOCIALIZED LOSSES!
http://www.squidoo.com/double_speak

Fireproofing.
http://blog.acton.org/archives/2503-Marriage-Movie.html

The Post about in vitro fertilization was mine. For some reason, although On Faith now requires that we sign in, it still recorded my comments under an anonymous label.

As for states' rights and human potential, consider that the 'Pro-life' agenda was screaming to *override* states' rights to force a family to keep Terry Schiavo, irrevocably brain-dead, on expensive life support, also over a theological belief with no basis in reality.

Or liberty.

Certainly not states' rights.

These are the people who try to enact national bans on *gay* rights whenever a state doesn't decide how they want.

Forget about it.

-Paganplace

In this era of DNA analysis of semen from rapists and for determining paternity, I would suggest that these technologies be implemented in determining the male who instigated each unwanted pregnancy. Then concurrent with repeal of Roe vs Wade laws should be passed and enforced that requires the sperm-donor to do substantial jail time. In the case of rape, the rapist should be sentenced to life, without parole. In the other cases of unwanted pregnancy of the female, the sperm-donor should be jailed for 18 years. During the jail time, the sperm-donor should have to be productive and give his entire income to supporting the mother and child. The sperm-donor should be chemically sterilized during this period so that no more unwanted pregnancies can be spawned. If males are held fully responsible, the number of unwanted pregnancies would dwindle to practically nothing.

Dr. Reynolds,

Roe v. Wade IS an expansion of liberty and personal freedom. There is no agreement over whether or not abortion is the equivalent to murder. We know that the unborn child is genetically unique, but it develops within the mother. Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States happen without the woman intending to become a mother. Let's allow women to choose, hope they choose life, and not punish them if do not. Women should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy.

Calling people 'evil' does not make change what the law is, or our rights, in fact, this is one of the primary things our civil rights *protect against.*

There's nothing *scientific* about the pro-life agenda, ...and these arguments of yours mean little in the first place when measured up against what the pro life people *actually try to get.*

That aside, when pro-life people talk about 'life begins at conception,' you aren't talking about when the human experience could even at its most imaginatively-defined be said to begin... You're talking about a theological belief in when a *soul* is created.

Roughly half of the country at least, doesn't share this view. And that there is such deep and sincere disagreement about what we believe about this issue, should be a big hint that it's not for the government to step in and make a ruling based on an unsupportable theological position in the first place.

Especially given how many rights and precedents would have to be gutted in order for you to have your way, especially given how many well-known social ills and hardships it would also impose if you were to have your way, especially given what it would do to our idea of liberty *itself* if you were to have your way.

You can scream it's 'murder' or 'evil' all you like, but:

Not everyone believes this, and imposing this religious view to treat women as baby-machines is certainly not enhancing liberty, nor is making the choices involved inaccessible to those too poor to travel out of state any kind of fairness or equal protection.

It's clear the 'pro-life' platform is about *theologically controlling *sex.* And women. Nowhere more evident in the insistence that *emergency contraception* constitutes abortion: this is days before *scientifically-speaking,* conception or pregnancy actually occur, though theology attributes this to the moment of intercourse.

Maybe they will change their tune. I dunno. Looks like Paddy whacking.

"You know what this is? It's one of those men-are-from-Mars, women-are-from-Venus things."

"Every aborted baby looks alike, but every child allowed to live becomes absolutely unique. Abortion crushes liberty for the sake of a single choice--it ends possibility with the cruel actuality of murder."

First it was terrorists tactics to fight the law and now it's gruesome imagery. http://www.artofeurope.com/goya/goy8.htm

When the rule of law isn't followed, chaos and disorder are certain to follow. The problem with propaganda is that the supermen always end up running in circles and are consumed by the same fires they ignite. Instead of terming women as murderers, which is over the top, the Saturn men can eat their own or eat crow. I am a man from Mars looking for a woman from Venus. I know she is out there and if I find her I will never ask if she had an abortion. I guess some guys would and then call her a murderer before leaving her in tears. It's a nasty world and people seem to be getting nastier. People now not only want to define other people, they also want to determine what rights others have when it is a matter of settled law. The Court says, get lost and we have decades of catcalls, harassment and other forms of abuse of women and men for that matter.

Liberty
"Lord Acton has said that liberty is a term of two hundred definitions. About all I am sure of is that it is something never established for the future, but something which each age must provide for itself. I think we are given the rough outlines of a free society by our Bill of Rights." Robert H. Jackson, Late Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States

I have bills you can't pay and should not have to pay. I have bills I can't pay. I have rights and there might not be systems or lawyers to protect you from yourself. Any woman who had an abortion has rights and mainly the right we all have. To be left alone and to pursue happiness. Some people don't want that and the next generation should have that as should ours.

Where is my Venus? Mars is lonesome here.

Mark:

Your argument derives from a flawed premise. You state that abortion is wrong. From that you conclude that Roe v Wade should be overturned. The constitution addresses those rights that we collectively believe are essential to a just and fair society. We have amended it over time and can amend it again. It does not assert moral rights and wrongs.

Consider that most if not all of us see abortion as a wrong - even those of us who are pro-choice. We then grapple with two wrongs when considering whether an abortion is justified - the harm that comes to the embryo/fetus, or the harm that comes to the pregnant woman, which can range from poverty, through depression and other mental health problems, to death. A constitution that gives preferential rights to the woman over the embryo or fetus represents our collective sense of what creates a just and fair society. It does not make a decision to have an abortion morally right or wrong. But it leaves that decision in the hands of the individual and so leaves moral choice where it belongs.

Mr. Reynolds,
Before I comment on your column, please think about the following: Are you in favor of in vitro fertilization to help infertile couples?

As you're pondering that question, bear in mind that in vitro fertilization typical requires fertilizing a number of eggs to insure that at least one viable egg (and it's usually up to three) can be implanted back into the mother.

As you think about this, remember that as of 2007, there were 500,000 frozen embryos in the United States alone and more than that have already been destroyed.

Is this murder? They are not in the mother but are fertilized and presumably have the same potential for life as a 3 day old blastocyst.

So my questions to you are as follows:
Should we stop all in vitro fertilization because its process requires more eggs to be fertilized than would be used and the by-product is the same as an abortion?

If these eggs are not ever going to be used or are to be destroyed, would we be better off as a society in using them in stem cell research? Of course we know where the administration stands on this.

And finally, when is something human? Is it when they have the genetic make-up to form a human (eventually) or is it when they develop a brain, a nervous system, can feel pain?

As medical technology advances and we are able to take the DNA from our skin and grow a human being, wouldn't the skin have the same "potential" humanness as a 3, 4 or 5 day old blastocyst. Would scratching my nose be seen as murder by some?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Turn your energy to stopping all the violence going on every day among criminals, in marriages, to kids being bullied, in wars, all those rapes - and leave women's wombs alone. They don't belong to you.

Mark,

It is merely your personal religious opinion that a blastocyst-embryo-fetus (which is physically inside and completely dependent on it's host) is exactly equivilent to an living-breating independent born person.

Fortunately, the Constitution prevents you from using the power of government to force your religious opinions on others who do not share your opinion.

You can wax poetic all you like but as long as it's in someone else's body, your opinion is completely (and legally) irrelevant. When it's inside your body, then and only then will your religious opinion carry any water (pun intended). So dude, good luck with that.

Pro-life.

What does that mean?

Pro-gun?

Pro-war?

Pro-death penalty?

Pro-torture?

Pro-homophobic?

These are all a bundled package of thoughtless, even unconscious conservative values, which rest on a history of reaction, obstructionism, racism, ignorance, and a backward paradigm of God as a metaphor of man, that is only just a tiny bit more advanced than the worship of stone idols.

Conservative Christians have no moral authority, nor any scientific truth, to back up their moral certainty regarding abortion, except for the the unconscious assumption that they are better, superior, and smarter than everyone else. But this of course is obviously, not true, either.

By forcing women to bear children that are unwanted, you do (at least) two things. First, you create an environment (adoption notwithstanding) where a child is a burden and resented by its mother. Second, you place the life of an unborn creature above that of the lives of those who already live. I'm not only talking about women who are endangered by pregnancies they must carry to term, but also about the women themselves. Because we as females are the ones who carry and give birth, our lives becomes less important than the ones you are forcing us to carry. It's an ancient mentality which sees women as nothing more than breeders, from an outdated time when women were chattel and used to secure lines of succession. You can dress up your anti-abortion mentality any way you'd like, but at the end of the day, it's still a form of misogyny.

"In a just society there can be no right to do evil." Amen. The more and more I look at our society the more I get the feel that this is exactly what people fight for mainly on a personal level. The "right" to do evil. God help us.

Mr. Edwards, you wrote: "This role is voluntary (in all but a few cases) and comes with responsibilities.

I don't want to give the unborn child more rights than the woman. I see nobody seriously suggesting that women do not have a "right to life."

But if you don't let a woman decide if she wants to have a baby, then the role isn't voluntary and while you may argue that women voluntarily engage in sex and therefore get pregnant- that isn't always the case. I know women who have gotten pregnant using birth control. There are women who get pregnant after rape. In these cases the role of mother is not voluntary.

And the right to life is not the only right we have- overturning Roe vs. wade would rescind the legal rights and constitutional rights of women, and in fact would force women to assume roles they do not necessarily want. You really can't have it both ways. A woman is either entitled to make decisions about her own body or she's not.

Unfortunately there are many people who hold the extreme view that even birth control is murder- no matter that it is "potentially".

"If not "killed" an embryo will become as we are." And indeed this is true but you just proved my point. An embryo has the potential to become a fully developed human being. But is not in this stage of development. It is only potentially. And if we decide the right of potential is greater than the right of a woman to decide if she wants to allow that potential, you are still taking away women's rights and in the most intrusive way. How about that women be given the right to demand sterilization for the man who gets them pregnant (married, rapist, boyfriend)? And the man may not object? Because this is what it feels like.

I do not think "eggs" should have the same rights as a person, since an unfertilized egg has no human potential (if left alone). If not "killed" an embryo will become as we are.

It does not seem a difficult distinction.

Women are much more than incubators and men are much more than sperm donors. However, one role for some women is as mother. One role for some men is as father. This role is voluntary (in all but a few cases) and comes with responsibilities.

I don't want to give the unborn child more rights than the woman. I see nobody seriously suggesting that women do not have a "right to life."

War and the Death Penalty:

I hope this thread does not get distracted.

I am not a big supporter of capital punishment and would gladly see it ended in exchange for an end to abortion. However, the distinction between a killer (convicted by a jury of his peers) and a baby seems obvious enough to make the comparison facile.

I am not a pacifist, but am opposed to targeting civilians in warfare. War is a serious choice and should not be entered into lightly or without the most grave moral questioning.

One might the wrong call about a particular war, but that does not justify making more wrong calls (in general) about killing children.

However, let's assume that I am inconsistent and should oppose (strongly) all wars and the death penalty. That makes me inconsistent, but does not aid the case for abortion at all.

One great moral evil is not made less heinous by listing other bad things society does.

"The right to control over one's own body ends at the other person's body. Here, advances in technology have given Americans a window on the womb and knowledge which the authors of Roe did not have. The unborn child is not merely an organ of the mother's body. Science is at war with the reasoning of Roe. The unborn child is genetically unique from the moment of conception. "

True- but until a certain point in its development, a child is a mass of cells, genetically unique and then an embryo- not a child. One could also argue that cancer cells are genetically unique from the rest of the body- so then what? We stop removing them? I'm not comparing a fertilized cell to a tumor, but by the same token, the fact that a group of cells is genetically different from the rest of a woman's body only means it has the potential to develop into a child.

But the major problem with your statement is that you dehumanize the woman, and you ignore the biology of fertilization and development. Basically what you want to do is reach inside a woman's body to give the fetus more rights than you give the mother.- which negates your comment.

you wrote:"Pro-life voters (a group including both liberals and conservatives) wish to protect the unborn while those in favor of Roe do not. Pro-Roe voters may personally be opposed to abortion, but they must not think the unborn child is fully human or their failure to grant her the right to life is unconscionable."

You're playing with semantics because the use of the term unborn child implies this is a full human from the moment the egg is fertilized. I disagree. Once you decide every fertilized egg is a human being potentially and therefore to be protected as a fully grown human being, what stops you from then claiming every egg should be treated as a human being? And in fact, there are many who oppose even birth control for that reason. So now you are reaching even further back to give a woman's eggs the same- or in fact, even more-rights than she has.

Where in the constitution do yo find this? You use every excuse and trick of semantics to convince us that women are no more than incubators, and from there its back down the slippery slope of stripping away equality of women.

Fill in the blank:

_________________ crushes liberty for the sake of a single choice--it ends possibility with the cruel actuality of murder.

A. capital punishment
B. pre-emptive war
C. war caused famine and disease

Or maybe, for neochristian cherry-pickers, only abortion would apply. As the Church Lady (maybe reincarnated now as Sarah Palin) would say, "How convenient!"