Abortion, POV's, challenge stands.

[Guest guest]

So many posts! I shall have to combine responses.

sampatron@... wrote:

>

>In a message dated 11/9/2004 11:02:36 AM Central Standard Time,

>dwatkins5@... writes:

>

>

>

>>Per pro-life pov, there is no

>>essential difference between the fetus and the eight-year-old.

>>

>>

>

>

>

>Has anybody discussed the level of self-consciousness as an issue in this

>argument?

>

>

If we go there, then we have to consider the " level of self

consciousness " among the retarded, Alzheimer's patients, etc.

[i found this article after all.]

" Pro-life? Look at the fruits

by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen

(http://go.sojo.net/ct/5p1y8Es1NBK1/) I am a Christian ethicist, and

trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son is

one

witness. For my family, " pro-life " is personal. My wife caught rubella in the

eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise

our baby. is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a

blessing to us and to the world.

I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the

data on abortion during the W. Bush presidency. There is no single

source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states

do

not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are

counterintuitive and disturbing.

Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's

abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s.

This

was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of

the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using

the Guttmacher Institute's studies).

Enter W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue

its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite

happened.

I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003,

and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from

2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's

increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that

reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion

rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average

decrease).

Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates

appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions

occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this

change of direction.

How could this be? I see three contributing factors:

First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child

(Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years,

unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net

loss of

jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real

incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to

match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth

to feed.

Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate

(Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not

marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and

in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were

16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As

male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.

Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children.

Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this

presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2

million -

abortion increases.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for

families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as does my son

-

that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and

parental employment are crucial for a special child. attended the

Kentucky

School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral

palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well.

We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother,

father, and child needs public and family support.

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate

issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling

brass,

without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage.

Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs

and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.

Glen Stassen is the B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller

Theological Seminary, and the co-author of Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in

Contemporary Context, Christianity Today's Book of the Year in theology or

ethics. "

None of this passes the eight-year-old test - it is all irrelevant. You wouldn't

countenance the killing of an eight-year-old because the parent didn't have a

job. The original challenge was to look at the issue from the pro-live pov.

writes:

all,

>>>>Per pro-life pov, there is no

>>>>essential difference between the fetus and the eight-year-old.

>>

>>

" Not much to hang your hat on here. " No essential difference " is

shorthand for what? If you take a fetus and place it on a sidewalk, and,

take almost any eight year old and put him or her on a sidewalk, and you

then ask them to do different things, what kinds of things would you ask

them to do that could demonstate that there is " no essential

difference " ? Of course the silly appropriation is a logical fallacy too.

I always am hopeful when I read pseudo-arguments like this. regards, "

Long on invective, short on reason, per your usual.

" No essential difference " mean that they are both human beings, and

equally human beings, as I believe you understood perfectly well.

A neonate and an eight-year-old have different capacities. An

eight-year-old and an advanced Alzheimer's pateint have different

capacities. A normal eight year-old and and eight year old with a bad

case of Down's syndrome have different capacities. Capacities don't

enter into it. The right to life does not hinge on passing a

" capacities " test. You, too, have failed to look at the problem from the

pro-life pov. If you want to convince them (us), you gotta see where

we're coming from. And all that blather about a " woman's right to

choose " is just fascist nihilism to us. The putative (and silly) notion

of an individual right to self-determination doesn't enter into it for

us. Let the culture wars rage on!

Maureen writes:

" The RCC's response has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting technology

- foundationally, the prohibition on contraceptives comes from two

different precepts

- there must be complete unity between a husband and wife, and no barrier

should stand in the way of that unity (love it or leave it, that's the

reason behind a ban on condoms, IUD's, etc.) "

I thought that the issue was one of unnaturally interfering with nature's (and

God's) way. Whic, it seems to me, leaves the RCC vulnerable to the charge that

" if man were meant to fly, he'd have wings. " But perhaps I have it wrong. I

don't make decisions on the basis of RCC teaching in any event.

" and

- other contraceptive methods, such as the pill, are in fact abortifants -

ie, they prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. "

Understood.

" There are many places in the world where this Catholic teaching prevails,

and families regularly expect to bury 9 out of their 12 children. "

I'm not sure where you get your figure here, but in any event, I take your

point. Tiny Tim gets sick and dies. But surely natural death is, well, natural?

It is a different matter from proactively killing?

" In such

cases, a little disunity in procreativity would not seem to be out of

order, to me at least "

I would agree that prudence dictates use of contraception. For myself, I would

think twice and three times about procreating without some very serious money in

the bank. That's just me and maybe not right for everyone.

:-)

" Abortion is a different question altogether, although I have heard one

crusty, old (emeritus) Jesuit and delightful professor argue that the soul

is not " shot in " to the body at some point during it's fetal development,

but 'co-arises' with it, like yeast in bread. Abortion during the first

twelve weeks, then, for him is acceptable. (So far God has not struck him

down, the Vatican has not disrobed him, nor has the college fired him "

I don't believe in souls, so, for me at least, it is not a question of when the

ghost enters the machine (many pro-lifers no doubt think differently). (Not all

Jesuits are theists you know :-). It is a question of when it is alive. The

medievals could talk about a " quickening, " but we moderns, with our knowledge of

cellular biology, know that the quickening occurs at conecption.

" imo, contraceptives and first-term abortion have freed women from the

tyranny of their bodies, and allowed us the same sexual freedom(s) always

enjoyed by men. "

It does always come down to hedonism, doesn't it? But hedonism is not a good

enough reason from the pro-life pov (my own opinion is that the " virgin-whore "

dichotomy was probably a better solution to the problem you point to).

Anybody else? Can anybody find an argument that might move the pro-lifer whose

opinion is that (1) the fetus (and for that matter the zygote) is as much a

human being as you or I, and (2) that there is no personal " right to

self-determination " held by the individual as individual?

I think that, if you can't overcome these opinions, you cannot persuade the

typical pro-lifer.

Best,

Dan

I think that is the (unconscious) reason men so oppose it.

My 2 cents . . . (steadily climbing in value as the US dollar drops :-)

peace,

Maureen