|
|
Post by shin on Feb 27, 2006 16:58:05 GMT -5
Once Roe V. Wade is overturned, there will never be another abortion again...EVER. In fact, abortions didn't even exist before it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Feb 27, 2006 17:13:26 GMT -5
heh heh good one shin....... and them anthropologists spoutin crazy talk 'bout salted vaginas in them thar huts... whale shit, that's a load uh' malarkie! judas priest can rant on all he wants about breakin the law, but it just don't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Feb 27, 2006 17:16:18 GMT -5
Well we all know how much historians lie to us, with the whole "seperation of church and state" nonsense. Just because Jefferson wrote those exact words in his letters, doesn't mean he actually ever meant it.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 27, 2006 22:49:26 GMT -5
Pope: Embryos Have Rights From Conception
By Sabina Castelfranco
Rome
27 February 2006
Pope Benedict said Monday that embryos created for in-vitro fertilization deserve the same right to life as newborns and adults. Addressing participants to a Vatican conference on the ethical treatment of human embryos, the pope reaffirmed Roman Catholic teaching that life begins at the moment of conception.
Pope Benedict said Monday that embryos created outside a woman's womb have the same right to life as those created naturally. He was speaking to participants of a two-day international congress at the Vatican on the ethical treatment of human embryos prior to implantation.
The congress focuses on the human embryos in its earliest phase of development. Prelates, bioethics experts and scientists are discussing issues including pre-implantation genetic screening of an embryo to check for diseases.
The pope said each human being deserves to be loved and God's love for every human being is without bounds.
Pope Benedict said the Roman Catholic Church has always proclaimed that every human life is sacred and inviolable from its conception to its natural end.
He added that this moral judgment is valid from the start of the life of the embryo, even before it is implanted in the mother's womb.
He said embryos should be given the same dignity as a newborn or fully-grown adult. God's love, he said, does not distinguish between the newly conceived baby still in the mother's womb, the child, the youth and the mature or elderly person.
The pope made no distinction between an embryo created naturally and one created outside the womb through in-vitro fertilization.
The pope made clear that in-vitro fertilization is considered morally wrong. The Church's reasoning is that it replaces the natural conjugal love between husband and wife. The Church does allow artificial insemination for married couples if it "facilitates" the sex act, but does not replace it.
The Church opposes the destruction and freezing of embryos created outside the womb, research into cloning and experimentation using stem cells taken from specially produced embryos. At the congress Monday, Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, head of the Vatican department on health issues, said, "Using embryos for scientific goals is another way of suppressing life."
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 27, 2006 22:53:35 GMT -5
Meanwhile ... Back in the REAL WORLD ...
It's the pneumonia, stupid
Feb. 23, 2006. 10:44 AM
PAUL WEBSTER
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
For Ashok Talyan, putting children first is more than a sentimental idea. With him, it's a question of pragmatism.
Dead and dying children are a part of daily life for Talyan, a 32-year-old physician and district medical officer in Uttar Pradesh, India's most densely populated province.
Twenty-three per cent of children in Uttar Pradesh die before the age of five — 30 times the average in wealthy nations like Canada.
On a tour last summer of one of the medical clinics Talyan works at in Adampur, a village of 7,000 where families live in crudely constructed huts without running water or electricity, it wasn't hard to see why so many young kids are dying.
The village's government-run clinic has only a few beds. The families of patients — mostly children dying from parasitic diseases, pneumonia or diarrhea — must pay for all the drugs. The water in the clinic is polluted. Electricity is only available a few hours a day.
"Most of these kids wouldn't get sick if a dollar or two per person annually was spent on public health in the region," Talyan said.
The situation offers insight into India's greatest human tragedy: More than a million newborns die in India annually. A further 1.5 million children die before the age of five from diseases of all kinds.
But India is just part of a larger global tragedy: More than 10 million children under five die each year worldwide. Ninety per cent of those deaths are concentrated in the world's 42 poorest countries.
Almost all of these children die from easily and inexpensively preventable diseases, a fact that is causing critics to complain that efforts to wipe out AIDS, malaria and polio — the "gang of three," as one UN adviser calls them — are consuming a share of international health aid resources disproportionate to the number of lives saved.
"The national health systems in many disease-ravaged countries need to be strengthened to tackle basic problems like diarrhea and pneumonia," says Harvard University researcher Catherine Michaud. "That effort needs to be better balanced with existing programs" like those tackling AIDS, TB, malaria and polio.
Michaud hastens to insist that not a cent of the money currently directed towards AIDS and other diseases should be diverted. What's needed, she says, is new money for new programs to tackle children's health.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 27, 2006 23:40:06 GMT -5
That is more than 25 thousand children
that are dying EACH DAY ... !
Don't they have rights too ... ??
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Feb 27, 2006 23:41:29 GMT -5
No. All rights are given up upon birth. Only unborn children have rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 27, 2006 23:46:37 GMT -5
The day there are no more children in the world
dying from famines, diseases, wars, slavery ...
That day, I'll get into the pro-life camp !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Feb 27, 2006 23:55:40 GMT -5
The day there are no more children in the world dying from famines, diseases, wars, slavery ... That day, I'll get into the pro-life camp !! I'm right there with ya, Scarecrow. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Feb 28, 2006 14:22:51 GMT -5
As a matter of fact, the New York Times had a great letter this morning regarding this very thing:
To the Editor:
Anti-abortion activists in South Dakota claim to be concerned about the "800 children aborted" in that state each year, and the State Legislature agrees. Apparently, their concern stops at birth.
According to the Children's Defense Fund, more than 27,000 children live in poverty in South Dakota; 18,000 have no health insurance; and two-thirds of fourth graders perform below grade level in math and reading.
The state's rankings regarding infant mortality, prenatal care and education spending per pupil are abysmal.
Where is the legislation to improve the lives of children already living in South Dakota?
I will never understand legislators who revere the fetus yet ignore the plight of the child once born.
Lori Keys Pender
Seattle, Feb. 23, 2006
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 7, 2006 12:53:12 GMT -5
A few things I've read in the last few days:
I've never understood the rape exception to laws forbidding abortion. Aside from it being moral gibberish, how exactly would it work in practice? Would there actually have to be a rape conviction before the exception is triggered, something virtually impossible given the rather short time horizon of pregnancy. Or would a woman simply have to claim to have been raped, and name the alleged assailant.
If it's the latter we can look forward to women making false rape accusations in order to obtain an abortion. If it's the former, it's not really much of an exception.
-
It's a frequent comment by both anti-choicers and busybodies who think it's their right to judge "good" and "bad" abortions largely based on the perceived morality of the women getting the abortion that women who can't afford children shouldn't have sex.
Of course a lot of these poor-women-getting-abortions are married women with children who don't have the economic resources to support another child, and not the caricature of the "irresponsible slut" that the busybodies are conjuring in their heads. If these people really believe that anyone who doesn't have the economic resources to support (another) child should simply stop having sex then that applies to the men as well.
Fortunately, with the twin joys of DNA testing and forced pregnancy more and more men may rationally decide to do just that. Congratulations, fellas!
-
I just realized that those nuts in South Dakota might be having an unanticipated effect. I am working today and this guy said to me over lunch, "I can't believe that these people are really serious." He's a bit of a putz and he admitted that he'd believed women were exaggerating the threat. I said "I hope you're ready to be daddies, boys. Last time abortion was illegal they didn't have DNA testing" and they all looked stunned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Mar 7, 2006 13:00:14 GMT -5
Right around election time I saw a very interesting survey. They asked Bush voters how they themselves felt about things like abortion, gay rights (not gay marriage, but the broader question of generally equal treatment), etc. On all of these issues, a great many of Bush voters disagreed with the President. These people basically said, "I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose, but I know that Bush isn't. However, I don't think he'll actually do anything about making abortion illegal." So here's this guy who's running for President saying that he wants to make abortion illegal, etc., and I disagree with him on all this liberty issues, but I'm going to vote for him b/c he seems likeable and makes me feel safe from terrorists, and I don't think he really means what he says about the other issues.
How could anyone vote like that with a straight face? The Republicans have been saying for 25 years "when we get in power we're going to make abortion illegal." Now that they've got the power to credibly threaten abortion rights, people are surprised that they're doing it? No one could have predicted this ... just like no one predicted planes being used as weapons by terrorists, civil war in Iraq, or New Orleans flooding in the wake of a major hurricane.
Un-f*cking-believable.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 7, 2006 13:07:54 GMT -5
"... Ignorance is bliss ..."
... Wilful blindness/deafness is just stupid !!
|
|
|
|
Post by luke on Mar 7, 2006 13:34:01 GMT -5
Yeah, Ken- I know a LOT of Bush voters like that, who completely support gay rights and abortion but never really thought that those issues would come into play. Like somehow, the Republicans were saying, "Look, vote for us and we'll save the nation, but bear with us while we talk a bunch of nonsense we don't mean about restricting gay rights and banning abortion, mm kay?"
It's fucking ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 7, 2006 14:34:54 GMT -5
And here I am thinking you guys have talked to Chrisfan before. This describes her perfectly. So stop acting surprised when the moderator of this very board feels this way.
|
|
