The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Defining Life


For John, BLUFWe have a big murky area that is our consensus as to when life begins.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Washington Post Columnist Sally Quinn takes on the brouhaha over Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, and his view that (1) life begins at conception and (2) all life comes from God.  From the Candidate:

"I struggled with it myself for a long time," he said, "but I came to realize that life is that gift from God.  And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
Mr Mourlock believes life begins at conception.  Ms Quinn writes:
Here’s the problem:  All of these guys are anti-abortion.  They believe life begins at conception.  Therefore, they believe an abortion is murder.  So if that’s true, how can they possibly believe it is okay to murder a fetus (a fully realized person in their eyes) simply because of the way the child was conceived?  This is baffling.  I admire Mourdock for telling the truth about what he believes.
OK, so if we think Mr Mourlock is flat out wrong, when DOES life begin?

Remember, in a few days those readers from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will get to vote on when life becomes no longer supportable as life.  I write that with a level of trepidation for what my future might hold.

Regards  —  Cliff

6 comments:

Renee said...

In many ways, people are admiring him for standing his ground on the issue. This isn't anything like Akin, Mourlock recognizes rape is violence and that the victim has a burden being pregnant that is completely out of her control.

We are not pro-rape. Just because I'm against the death penalty, doesn't mean I'm pro-murderers.


As a woman, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. In the circumstances of pregnancy from rape, either I'm forced to have a baby or I'm forced to have an abortion. Abortion is always a tragedy in of itself, but having a baby and being conflicted with a child created from a rapist, could I properly bond and raise the child? If I choose to keep the pregnancy, does society no longer see me as a victim of rape?

There are a lot of antidotes of children being a product of rape, either being raised by the biological mom or being adopted.

No one is pro-rape, and yes women do get pregnant from rape, but I'm sick of the 'gotcha' questions that do indeed twist our values as being anti-woman.

If human life came from something tragic and violent against one's will, does that human life have no value?

If we believe all human life has value, including a murdering rapist to be spared from the death penalty, then the unborn child should be spared from abortion.

Craig H said...

A woman's right to choose what SHE believes, and how she will manage her own body, is lost the moment someone trumps her with "life begins at conception". And even if we decide we're going to screw her anyway, (pun intended), I still say we're arguing the wrong thing here.

The unspoken corollary to "life begins with conception" is that "the government not only has the responsibility, but also should be invested with the power to determine the presence and existence of all human life within its borders and inside the bodies of its female citizens, meaning that the daily reproductive state of all female citizens must be determined and consequences enforced should they be determined to be pregnant and not respecting their unborn fetus as the beliefs of others would require".

I say, first and foremost of all, like locked car trunks, a woman's uterus MUST BE beyond the government's power to search. Period. This also means that "doctor/patient privilege" protects discussions a woman may have with her physician about that hypothetical pregnancy. (Like Schroedinger's cat, every woman must be presumed to be both pregnant and not pregnant at all times). And should a citizen determine that it is imperative for her to manage her own health by having certain medical procedures conducted on HER BODY, then regardless of us all decrying that abortions might ever take place, IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

Otherwise, we're in a police state, (not that we aren't already), and our Constitution is meaningless.

Renee said...

On a regular basis, I deal with newborns who test positive for drugs upon being born. The government steps in immediately and takes custody of the child.

So at birth, the state has an interest, and uses it to its furthest extent.


Otherwise, comparing my uterus and unborn child to a suitcase in an unlocked trunk is extremely dehumanizing.

We're BOTH human beings, and we should BOTH be treated with the same respect.



“All who are genuinely committed to the advancement of women can and must offer a woman or a girl who is pregnant, frightened, and alone a better alternative than the destruction of her own unborn child” ~ Mary Ann Glendon, Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, September 5, 1995


Renee said...

Remember the government does have a major interest in a woman's uterus. The government is mandating all contraception/strerilization to be free of charge, including religious based institutions who understand reproductive organs in a healthy state are fertile and just like you take care every part of your body, you take care of it by changing your behavior. The government doesn't tell people eat whatever they want, because gastric by-pass is available. Instead we have the First Lady tell us to eat our vegetable and exercise.

Why do we tell ourselves, we can engage in unhealthy sexual behaviors/relationships because we should have contraception at no-cost.



The pro-choice side is stating the government shouldn't be in the business of women's decisions, but it uses every bit of its ability to push that women shouldn't get pregnant. To the point that they're now recommending parents to give their minor teenage girls IUDs.

There have been consequences with the IUDs, because no one uses a condom with contraception. STDs rates rising.

Yes, IUDs in teenagers reduce abortion...

"The Contraceptive Choice Project, conducted by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Mo., enrolled 9,256 women and teens from 14 to 45 years of age in the St. Louis area between 2007 and 2011. The participants were all uninsured, low-income, or otherwise determined to be at risk for unintended pregnancy.

Each woman was given a choice of birth control methods, ranging from long-term and more expensive contraceptive devices, such as the intrauterine device (IUD) or an implant, to more common methods, including birth control pills, the ring and the patch. Since price wasn't an issue, about 75 percent of participants chose the implanted methods, which are more effective than short-term methods"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-abortion-rate_n_1942621.html

Wait...

http://www.stlouischildrens.org/our-services/emergency-medicine/hiv-testing-faq

Saint Louis City sexually transmitted diseases data

Gonorrhea rates are 7 times the national average
Chlamydia rates are 4 times the national average
Syphilis rates are 3 times the national average

------


How can you protect yourself from getting HIV?

Abstain from sex
Use a protective barrier, like a condom
Do not share needles for injection drugs
Maintain a mutually monogamous relationship with your partner

---------
Well.... all the free contraception can't do that...



Renee said...

What about breastfeeding? Mother and child are still 'connected'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20107973

"A woman in New Zealand has been found guilty of giving her three-month-old baby cannabis through her breast milk.

The 29-year-old mother had pleaded guilty in what is believed to be the first case of its kind in the country.

She was charged with giving a controlled drug to a person under 18, after a police drugs raid on her house."


Craig H said...

Renee, "dehumanization" is exactly my point. Treating women as having less right and value under our laws than a car trunk is profoundly wrong.

You cite many compelling situations regarding both unborn and born human life about which the government has made no unreasonable search, and about which the government under our present system of laws has every obligation to intervene. Nowhere in my argument am I suggesting that we backtrack on any of this. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly that Ms Glendon's sentiments.

However, equating government policy on health/reproductive/contraceptive products to a direct interest in the disposition of a woman's uterus is a logical fallacy. In the case of the existing policies (and I will likely agree with you on many of the inconsistencies and unfairnesses of them related to religious beliefs) they are always remaining respectful of a woman's right to determine the disposition of her reproductive choices. This is not the same as the government intervening to insist on her reproductive requirements.