Well, we can't say we weren't expecting it but I was shocked that President Obama made undoing the "Mexico City Policy" allowing funding to organizations that provide abortions (link) such a high priority. The policy, implemented by Reagan, repealed by Clinton and reestablished by Bush has again been overturned by Obama within three days of being sworn in as president. Apparently a "woman's right to choose" is of greater importance than almost anything else going on at the moment. Obama has always supported abortion rights regardless of the situation and reason. For such a supposedly smart man he just doesn't get it. I'm curious how his actions aren't political (as he claims in his own comments about his action) and it will be interesting to see how his supporters will spin this action as being "pro-family" when the end result is to allow elimination of a family member.
The discussion about abortion is often heated and more knee-jerk than thoughtful. Recently I was talking to a highly educated person who actually made the statement that an embryo was no different than any other mass of tissue such as skin cells or a tumor (shocking but that was what was said). It was a bit sad that I had to point out that one major difference was you could not take a skin sample, implant it in a uterus and nine months later have a baby emerge.
Modern science is showing how viability can be pushed back closer and closer to the time of conception. For someone who claims to want to put science back in the place it belongs, I wish President Obama would pay attention to the science he supposedly reveres.
6 comments:
I have heard Obama say that he personally is against abortion, but he feels that it is a woman's right to choose. This causes me to question his leadership potential, since it suggests that he bases his decisions on politics rather than his personal vision or ideas. Most people, not just politicians, are caught in a balancing act of what they want versus what everyone else wants or what is best for society.
I agree that abortion in most cases is wrong. But what about rape victims who conceive or mothers of children with incurable genetic diseases. Resources are becoming more and more limited. Should society pick up the tab for treatment and care for chronically ill individuals or neurologically damaged offspring from drug and alcohol addicts or should these things be nipped in the bud if the mother is willing to undergo an abortion and cannot afford a lifetime of medical bills?
Since you are in the 50% tax bracket, do you want your money going to support children whose parents are unable to care for them?
another issue here is when does an embryo become human? A fertilized egg can become a person, but at what point is it considered to be a person. Do the fertility clinics have to consider each fertilized egg to be a human? If the technician drops one on the floor, is he/she an involuntary murderer? Science cannot answer that.
Don't tell anyone, but not everything in the world boils down to cost.
Are people with incurable genetic diseases any less human? I have said before that for the [my] pro-life position to have the moral high ground we pro-lifers have to spend the money, the time, and make the commitment to show those children you have described that they are loved and wanted. I know people talk about wanting "babies", perfect little bundles of "joy" but you know what, if you really think that God is pro-life and you are doing God's work being pro-life then you need to start taking care of those babies whose mothers (or as Dr. Laura might say, "egg donors") are too messed up to raise those kids. Society needs to stop being selfish and start taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
If those scenarios are at the forefront of the pro-abortion cause, why not fight for the imposition of depo-provera injections or Merina for women who are drug users or alcoholics or who have tested positive? Both are reversible and could be put in place for years while those human beings made the transition through therapy and intervention from being simply female to actual potential mothers? Why resort to taking an innocent life when you could stop the production of the zygote?
As for the technician question, do you really compare accidental issues with "murder"? Murder, as traditionally defined in Common Law countries, has an implication of intent or malice of forethought. Dropping an embryo by accidnet is not the same as going through a process with the express intent of killing said embryo. If science cannot make such a distinction then it seems to be rather impotent.
You pranced all around the issue that I was trying to get at. (My bad, I blabbered too much.) The issue is when do you consider an embryo to be a human being. If it is at the time of conception, then someone who carelessly drops a fertilized egg could be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which is different from premeditated murder. the morning after pill and any other birth control method that prevents the implantation of an embryo in the womb would be murder, if you consider conception to be the defining point. This is a religious or moral question, and not a scientific one. My personal view is that I would not have an abortion, even if the pregnancy was unwanted, but the morning after pill is OK. If the child was very compromised and could not lead a normal life with out serious medical intervention, I may think differently. Just out of curiosity, have you considered adopting a child?
Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.
I didn't dance around anything. You equated the accident with murder but it isn't. When human life begins isn't a religious issue, it is scientific. Why work with the morning after pill when Depo-Provera or Mirena actually stops fertilization from taking place? How is this dancing around the issue? For those of us who thinks human life begins at conception there are ways to allow for people to continue to have sex (which is another issue to bring up) while preventing the fertilization event to take place.
Heh,heh, heh. I knew the prancing comment would get you going. I said mistreatment of a fertilized egg would be involuntary murder, but the technical name is involuntary manslaughter. According to the definition, it does not require malice of forethought. It refers to death resulting from carelessness, and it can be criminally punished, depending on the circumstances. It was not clear from your posts about what the defining event was for the inception of a human life. Now that you have made it more clear, perhaps you should rethink your approach to IUDs. Most info is that they prevent fertilization of the egg by some mysterious means, but how do they know that? The following abstract indicates that there are fertilizations that are not implanted in the womb because of the IUD. If life begins at conception, as you attest, then IUDs (Mirena) should be banned.
Food for thought. If you are going to take a stand, you need to be rigorous.
Except for rodents, I am reluctant to end any life. After I repotted a plant this morning, a black widow spider came out and walked across the pot where I was handling it. She's still out there.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Dec;187(6):1699-708.Click here to read Links
Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects.
Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT.
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah Health Research Center, Salt Lake City 84108, USA. jstanford@dfpm.utah.edu
There are many potential mechanisms of action for the intrauterine device (IUD), which vary by type of IUD (inert, copper, or hormonal). This paper reviews the evidence for each potential mechanism of action. On the basis of available data for fertilization rates and clinical pregnancy rates, the relative contribution of mechanisms acting before or after fertilization were quantitatively estimated. These estimates indicate that, although prefertilization effects are more prominent for the copper IUD, both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices.
Now it's just confusing since there is no real concept of "involuntary murder" as by definition murder implies some type of intent or absolute recklessness as to not care about the impact of your actions upon others. Under most statues murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder (usually what most people think of first when they think of murder); (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury (again the idea of intention comes into play); (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness (again not an accident as described in the original post) and (4) murder committed by an accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies. The situation described could imply they could be brought up on charges of manslaughter but not "accidental murder". Accidental homicide would be a better term than even manslaughter but that is really splitting legal hairs.
The 2002 reference is a bit old on the IUD. Even Planned Parenthood makes the following statement:
"Both the ParaGard and the Mirena IUDs affect the way sperm move, preventing them from joining with an egg. If sperm cannot join with an egg, pregnancy cannot happen. Both types also alter the lining of the uterus. Some people say that this keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens.
The progestin in the Mirena IUD helps prevent pregnancy. Progestin works by keeping a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. Progestin also prevents pregnancy by thickening a woman's cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg."
Similarly, Irving Sivin, senior associate in the Center for Biomedical Research of the U.S. Population Council in Health Alert says the following:
"Assays and other techniques have not found traces of fertilization of IUD users. It would seem that lUDs work by diminishing the number of sperm that reach the oviduct and their capacity to fertilize the ova. Similarly, some studies showed that there were less eggs found in the oviduct of IUD users as opposed to non-users."
You also danced around depo which also prevents ovulation (and thus by definition prevents fertilization). Long-term impact aside (there is some calcium loss after a couple of years which can be offset), given your situation of the types of environments that could produce children to less than fit mothers I would rather err on that side than killing the child.
Post a Comment