The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmond Burke
Edmond Burke
I just finished replying to a comment left on the blog. It was a pro-choice person explaining how opposing abortion is a religious decision. Yeah right.
Ask a child what happens when you crush an egg containing an embryo. The baby bird dies. Am I missing something? Does the child believe the baby bird dies because of religion? Are life and death merely religious issues? If it weren't for religion would murder be ok?
I can't think of a society that embraced unnecessary murder. Some have committed infanticide out of necessity, but it wasn't because they didn't value life. It's the exact opposite, they didn't want those already alive to be threatened.
Is this where we are as a society? Do we need to abort our citizens to protect our own lives? How many people spend thousands of dollars to keep the family dog alive a couple extra years. We put all this trouble into a dog, a freaking animal, but we can't do anything for unborn people?
This person believes that it's all right to be fundamentally opposed to abortion, while allowing others to carry them out. This is like watching a country commit genocide on it's citizens. Don't say it's not, because that's exactly what it is. Can we be opposed to genocide, but let it happen because it's a choice issue? It's a nation's choice what they do with the people in their country, who are we to stop them?
But this is just religious talk. I wouldn't feel this way if I wasn't a Catholic.
Maybe I need to start praying again, praying for these people who don't have the ability to see what's in front of their face.
The road these people want to take us down is a dead end, and it will be a fight to get this train turned around. It wont happen if the people who believe in protecting life do nothing.
Brandon
posted by alaskavetusmc @ 1:54 PM
8 Comments:
Bud, I am with you on the abortion issue. But what about stem cell research where a woman donates 20 eggs and they are all fertilized in a test tube (in vitro fertilization) and then some are implanted back into the egg donor for a successful pregnancy. After a certain time period passes the lab holding the extra (frozen) fertilized eggs will destroy them (they won't last forever even in the frozen state). Is this still human life frozen in the lab? Are we doing the right thing by letting the lab destroy them at a later date?
hey man, i wish you luck in rejoining the Corps (reserve). I did my four and got out but I am talking to a Staff Sergeant with Charlie Company, 4th LAR Bn here in Utah. I'm going to be a supply clerk but I am looking into doing a latmove into the infantry. Semper Fi!
Knock knock, still there Alaska Vet?
I have had discussions with people who seem to think this is a religious issue. Their argument however was shallow. (not always the case) because they could only cite extreme cases where they felt abortion was necessary such as rape and incest. Those only account for less than 1% of abortions. When I pointed out that 99% of abortions are for the mothers convenience they had nothing to say.
As far as what anonymous is saying the argument in my mind doesn't change. Just ask a woman who has had a miscarriage (as my wife did) in the first trimester. She and I grieved as is that child had already been born. Is it any less a child because it is not wanted? Another question to ask pro-death advocates is if they think it was right to charge people like Scott Peterson with 2 murders? Most will answer in the affirmative. Well if our court system can prosecute a person for the murder of a child in vitro, why is it different for a doctor to do it in an abortion clinic?
Thanks USMC vet for your service, my family and I owe you a debt. I retired from the Navy in 2004.
So bro, to you think there should be a law against fertilizing extra human eggs if they can't be implanted immediately?
well, if you crush an egg, the egg is a crushed egg. if it was fertilized, it was an embryo (actually, it is a zygote at that point). when the egg hatches, it's a chickling.
and for your argument about all abortion being wrong to succeed you [the two men] must believe that life begins at conception. what if you don't believe that? (very few religions in the world actually preach and believe that.)
I don't believe that a fertilized egg is actually a human being (or a bird or a dog, etc.) until it is viable, i.e., capable of sustaining life on its own.
I have had many discussions with many pro-choice and anti-choice people and I find that the pro-choice people believe that abortion should only be the last method available given that there are so many forms of birth control available. But nonetheless, they believe that such choices (medical or moral) are personal, private choices out of the perview of disinterested individuals or governing authorities (the basis of Roe v. Wade). They themselves might not have abortions, but they don't want anyone else making that choice for them.
However, I have yet to meet an anti-choice person that can present anything but religious philosophy as their reason for prohibiting this medical procedure BUT who are willing to "permit" abortion if the mother's health is at risk or in the case of rape or incest... Why the exception? Willing to admit that just some life is more precious than others?
Just as someone with my views should not be able to force those beliefs on you, I find it abhorable that you believe your beliefs should be able to be forced on women who do not feel the same.
And I wonder just how many [men] would be standing up against such personal choices if we were talking about whether to force or prohibit vasectomies?
Isn't sterilization completely different from abortion?
Post a Comment
<< Home