gadgetlady

I was banded by Dr. Quebbemann in Newport Beach. Love him.

What if the mother decides that she's not capable when the baby's been born for a week? Again, some very learned people have proposed that that should be acceptable. One of them is a Nobel Laureate. There are many websites that document this. I have cut and pasted from one: For some time now, many in the medical profession, along with the intellectual elite, have advocated infanticide and euthanasia. In his book, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law, Dr. Glanville Williams advocates "humanitarian infanticide" and "euthanasia for handicapped children." Dr. Robert H. Williams, a professor of endocrinology, has said that "planning to prevent overpopulation of the earth must also include euthanasia, either negative or positive" (Northwest Medicine, July 1970). According to Dr. Joseph Fletcher, the well-known professor of medical ethics and proponent of situation ethics, "It is ridiculous to give ethical approval to positive ending of subhuman life in utero, as we do now in therapeutic abortions for reasons of mercy and compassion, but refuse to approve of positively ending a subhuman life in extremis" ("Ethics and Euthanasia," in To Love and to Die: When, Why, and How, by Robert H. Williams). James D. Watson, the Nobel laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, has said: "If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have" (Time, May 28, 1973, page 104). Francis Crick, also a Nobel laureate, has said, "No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live" (American Medical Association, Prism, May 1973). Millard S. Everett, who was professor of philosophy and humanities at Oklahoma A & M, wrote: "My personal feeling...is that eventually, when public opinion is prepared for it, no child should be admitted into society of the living who would be certain to suffer any social handicap—for example, any physical or mental defect that would prevent marriage or would make others tolerate his company only from a sense of mercy" (Ideals of Life: An Introduction to Ethics and Humanities, 1954). [emphasis added] So infants are "subhuman", parents should have the right to "euthanize" their children if there is a social handicap present, and newborn infants shouldn't be declared human until they pass certain tests. Who the hell is this man to have the presumption to "declare" someone human! It's not his right to "declare". Either someone is human or they're not. His mind-boggling opinion doesn't make one iota of difference to biological and scientific reality. I'm not making this stuff up. Advocating that a woman OWNS her child in utero leads directly to this line of thinking. I don't OWN my children. Never have. Never will. They are not mine to do with what I wish. They weren't my property when they were kicking me in the ribs while in my womb, they weren't my property the millisecond before or after they were removed from my abdomen, and they aren't my property now.

Perfect! When does biology tell us a person comes into existence? When is the entity that is identifiable by DNA separate from the mother in existence?

Sunchickie, where are you? The people we're staying with in Nashville don't have cable so all my news has been from the internet and family. News reports are saying 1,000,000 people evacuated thus far. It's mind boggling. Are you doing OK?

You sound like you shouldn't be on LBT for lack of time I hated graduate school -- not enough free time. Best of luck to you! LMK if you ever do get to the Creation Museum. I'd love to discuss it with you. If you do decide to go, go on a weekday and not in the summer. We went on a Friday and it was so crowded it was like a gauntlet to get through the rooms. They are getting waaaayyyy more people than they expected. There are some things about it that you won't like because of the Biblical references, but the scientific aspects would be of interest to you.

Yeah, my kids did NOT do well with the Underground Railroad Museum. They're very sensitive (like their mother) to human suffering. YOU should go see the Creation Museum I could even try to get you in free if you want to go.

We saw the Diamond Cave and the Lost River Cave. Pretty amazing stuff. I never knew Kentucky had that type of geography.

The Underground Railroad Museum did that to me. Disgusting part of our history. I just can't believe how people can treat other human beings with such cruelty. We're headed back tomorrow so we're out of time to see anything else :-(

I thought you were in Kansas, not Kentucky. I get my "K" states confused LOL! Kentucky was actually our destination and Nashville was a side trip. We came to see the Creation Museum in Florence and ended up with a few side trips: visiting friends in Troy, visiting the Underground Railroad Museum in Cincinnati, and seeing Lincoln's birthplace and some caves in Kentucky. Living in California we don't do many "road trips" so this was a lot of fun.

Everyone there is in our prayers. We are anxious to get home so we can help with the relief efforts.

Currently none of the fires are anywhere near Pasadena. Basically the areas getting hit are out in the more "wilderness-y" areas, not the more compacted cities. I live in Orange County but am currently on vacation in Nashville (where it is raining), so I'm following everything pretty closely.

Thanks, L8BloomR. I will never stop speaking on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. When we were at the Underground Railroad Museum last week, my dh pointed out that if we had lived during that time, we would likely have been working on behalf of the slaves. Injustice absolutely wrecks me, especially when it affects innocent human beings. Did you know that today, over 150,000 young people are speaking out -- or not speaking out, as it were -- on behalf of the unborn? Today is the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity. Students all around the nation (and in 18 other countries) are wearing armbands and in some cases duct tape over their mouths with the word "LIFE" on them. They are remaining silent for the day in support of those who will never have a voice. For more details, go to Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity. TThe website tracks people by school, so you will see a count of students in close to 4600 schools participating; the individual count of students is over 150,000. I suspect it might reach 200,000. I spoke with the founder a few days ago and it was growing exponentially by the day. I was commenting to my dh the other day that I understand why people were in favor of abortion during the social turmoil of the 60's and 70's -- that it made sense in the context of a "me" society that was focused on personal pleasure with no strings attached and no responsibilities. But as we have learned more and more about the development of the unborn, as we know that at 12 weeks in utero babies are developed down to having individual fingerprints, as we know that the baby has a beating heart generally before the mother knows she's pregnant, more and more youth are becoming pro-life. To me, education turns the tide and will continue to do so.

Humanity is "granted" in the sense that a sperm and an egg are required to create human life, but the existence of that humanity isn't granted when one person "speaks" or "thinks" another person exists. The humanity is granted by the act of fertilization, not by the arbitrary feelings of either parent that the child has suddenly become a child. As I have pointed out previously, there are some very lauded and educated people who believe parents should have the right to "exterminate" their children within a month of birth if the children aren't up to the parents' standards. My argument is that one person's "standards" shouldn't have a say in whether another person lives.

The point I'm trying to get to, marjon, is that the whole and entire argument is whether or not the unborn baby is indeed a human being. Nothing else matters. Slave owners thought they had the right to determine whether slaves were worthy of life or not. That is why there is a parallel. One person was deciding for another whether the other person was, indeed, a person. Conscience shouldn't decide an issue of when life begins, because if it did then people could say it begins at age 3, or only if a person is white, or any other number of arbitrary considerations. Humanity isn't GRANTED to one person by another person; moms shouldn't get to decide for their kids when they have the right to live.

I have read the article, BTW. And I did comment on it. As to the scenarios you provided, I do not deny that there are sometimes extremely difficult situations to contend with when there is an unplanned pregnancy. My contention is that killing someone is not the best solution to an extremely difficult situation.

Actually, I believe one of the few purposes of government is to protect people from having their rights and lives trampled by others. So as stupid as the act may be, I believe people SHOULD have the right to willingly cut their limbs off. Where I draw the line is when one person's rights infringe on another's. And since abortion stops the beating heart of another human being, the government thus has the right to intervene. And before you go off and say I think women are therefore being forced into mandatory childbirth, I don't have a problem with sterilization and birth control -- precisely because they do not interfere with the life of anyone but the person doing them.

I don't believe abortion is a religious issue. It's a human rights issue. There are athiests who are pro-life -- simply based on the undeniable humanity of the unborn.

The government makes decisions about our body all the time. Go into a doctor's office and ask them to remove a perfectly healthy limb. Good luck with that. And your perfectly healthy limb is a part of you that actually has your own DNA (which, as you know, the baby is not -- he or she has her own DNA, bloodstream, heart, limbs, nervous system, etc.). God is responsible for unintended pregnancies? I'm not sure I get where you're going here. Is he also responsible for the ensuing abortions? In any case, that issue aside, my sole argument on this issue is that regardless of social situations or heartbreaking circumstances, it is never OK to kill another person for one's own convenience.

If you say so. Can't imagine who, though, because no one else was saying anything about it but me. I must be paranoid. After all, there's no reason to think you were getting personal when only two people addressed an issue and you informed one of them that your response wasn't directed at her.

LOL! No, it's only me who's being ignoble. Apparently for responding to the false claim that unwanted children are globbing up the foster care system and should be killed instead.

You are going a bit off the deep end here. I never suggested that women should be forcibly impregnated because other women were infertile. I also never said that abortion should be illegal because there aren't enough "abandoned" babies in this country. It's precisely the opposite. I was responding to a claim that abortion should remain legal because there are too many unwanted children out there. My sole reason for wanting abortion to be illegal is because it kills a human being. Abortion stops a beating heart. Amen. Period. The end. The other arguments are tangential and I don't bring them up; I only respond to them. For you to turn around and say my arguments are weak when all I'm doing is replying to objections raised by your side is ridiculous. And I will again point out why I compare abortion to slavery: slavery was legally allowed because the slaves were defined as less than a full human being. Abortion is legally allowed for the same reason. The other facet of similarity is that one person is given the ability to claim legal dominion over the other. If a slavemaster killed his slaves, it was no one's business but his own. The parallels are there; you just refuse to look at them.

I thought you said some slaves were children (in fact, you did, and, in fact, infants were often taken from their mothers). Is the only thing that defines life the ability to breathe and take care of oneself? Because if that's the case, there are a heck of a lot of people on oxygen for assisted breathing who, I guess, are actually dead or not worthy of living. So legal abortion through 9 months of pregnancy for any reason at all. That's lovely. Everyone deserves equal "quality of life" after birth to be granted the right to life? Women aren't sub-human at all. Women are incredible, and have been sold a bill of goods that they can't be effective, productive members of society with children. Why, pray tell, do so many people leave the US to adopt foreign babies? I know the answer -- I'm just wondering if you do.

I don't think the issue is that they weren't TRUE pro-lifers; I think the issue is that they had human moral failings, just like many others did and do. Woman in crisis pregnancies are very emotional (the first 3 months of pregnancy are the most emotional time in a woman's life) and often face a very tense situation. This is true regardless of the woman's convictions about life. It is sad when anyone makes the decision to abort, regardless of whether they are hypocritical or not. Speaking of hypocritical, I find it amusing when those in favor of abortion say they dislike abortion being used as birth control (if I'm not mistaken, some have even said it in this thread) or that they believe abortion should be legal but only until "such and such" a point. If abortion truly is a morally neutral issue, who the heck cares if women use it as birth control? If the thing growing in the woman's body is her property, part of her body and her purview alone, who the heck are you to say after 22 weeks, or 3 months, or any other arbitrary period of time prior to birth, that a woman shouldn't abort?

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous this statement becomes. Why does truth need a consensus or a witness? For example, at one point you had an entire planet of people who were convinced the earth was flat. A huge percentage of the population believed the moon was made of green cheese. According to the experts of the day, if you left beef to rot, it would produce flies. The disease malaria is named because of a widespread belief that it came from air. None of these things was true, yet everyone believed them. And, in fact, there were witnesses. Beef really did "spontaneously" "produce" flies. Truth is truth. It just IS. It doesn't matter who believes it or who manages to convince their neighbor about it. It just plain IS.

In other words, everything is relative and there is no absolute truth? I completely disagree. There are pure values and actions that are either good or evil, right or wrong. Some things are conditional or circumstantial, but not all. Because these are human beings who don't have a say or control over their lives. They are seen as less than equal, CHILDREN who are seen as being owned by their mother rather than the unique individuals who they are. When we define someone as sub-human, it's really easy to deny them rights.