Protestantism

» pink101 - What about...?

In response to What about...? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I suppose I would answer, "Yes," to those questions.
.
But, I believe that we need to understand the common good of society. In my mind, we need more understanding about how we got to be the We The People that we are. The educational programs in this society are rediculous for a democracy as wealthy as is the United States. Our economic system ONLY serves the wealthy and many people who are fortunate enough to be well off are only there for window dressing. The ONLY reason we have many of the stop gap methods to protect working men and women is because of the socialist and communist movement of the first third of the twentieth century--any historian knows that full well. And, that doesn't mean that I support communism--only that communism was instrumental in forcing capitalism to adjust its raw methodologies designed to make the super rich more rich and powerful.
.
There is a line drawn in history ...
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - What about...?

In response to What about...? posted by BrianTubbs:

Brian wrote:
What about the baby?
What we can only have an opinion about, but not know **for a fact,** is: when does a foetus become a human being? I don't believe a foetus is a human being until it has the ability (or at least a reasonable possibility) to live on its own, outside of the womb.
.
What about the baby who is born so deformed that it will never know a normal life?
.
What about the baby who will only live for a short amount of time and then will die anyway, possibly with great suffering?
.
What about the baby who is born into extreme poverty, or unwanted, or to parents who are (for whatever reason) completely unfit to be parents?
.
What about the baby, when choosing the baby's life over that of the mother, means other children, already living, will grow up without a mother?
.
What about the baby who is already dead in its mother's womb? Would you insist she should carry that child to term? Do you have any idea how cruel that is?
.
And, frankly, I am a little unsettled at the insinuation that because I'm a man, I'm unqualified to ask such questions or speak to this issue.
.
If there were moral/ethical issues regarding prostate health or male pattern baldness, I would not presume to know how it would feel to be a male with those conditions, nor would I presume to know what would be right for a male.
.
You simply do not know what it is like to be a woman. You might be able to identify with a woman's feelings. You might have sympathy for her situation, but you have no idea how it feels to be pregnant, all the issues involved, for *any* woman, whether or not she is considering an abortion.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» redback - YES and NO

In response to Questions re: the Body posted by BrianTubbs:

I assume you mean criminal law, not 'health' law which comes under the broader heading of administrative law. There's an interesting little concept here of NIMBY, and probably also in the USA. Loosely, it means an overwhelming YES BUT not-in-my-backyard.

Are we being fair dinkum?? If one answers 'YES' to your questions but vehemently opposes the lifestyle and will do everything possible to stop it short of (insert whatever) or pass the buck by expecting others to clean up the melena...then maybe that philosophical agreement is only as good as the inaction it represents.

"If you answer "NO" to any of the above, then this means you have opened the door to the government regulating your body."

Well, the door's already open. The next question is do we leave it open, unsupervised, 24/7. I'm not about to fly LSD Airlines or Cocaine Coaches anytime soon. And I'm a bit antsy when no attempt is made to rein in excessive tax costs caused by preventable actions of whatever cause. Non-exhaustive:

Can we still use social isolation, stigma-feeding, and tax penalties, limit treatment avenues or have to give these up too...if we say 'YES'?

Should under-age prostitutes use secluded church grounds for sex for sale?

BUT A person should have the right to self-harm and suicide (not commit ) as long as we have the legal right to exercise due care.

-- posted by redback

» Brian Tubbs - Answering PT

In response to What about...? posted by paper_turtle:

What we can only have an opinion about, but not know **for a fact,** is: when does a foetus become a human being?

Double-check my figures, but a baby has a heart beat and brain waves at about the 8th week of pregnancy. I think you have to engage in some pretty interesting mental gymnastics to try to rationalize that this doesn't constitute human life.

I don't believe a foetus is a human being until it has the ability (or at least a reasonable possibility) to live on its own, outside of the womb.

And this is based on what - your opinion? Some public opinion polls? Not to be obnoxious, but when it comes to making a decision about life or death, I think we should have a more objective, authoritative standard than that.

Besides, what does this say for people living on life support? Or people who were dependent on the care of others? Must a person be able to live independently in order to have a life worthy of legal protection?
.
What about the baby who is born so deformed that it will never know a normal life?

Sounds like we're starting to play God. But even if this exception is granted, we're talking about a REMOTE number of abortions here.

What about the baby who will only live for a short amount of time and then will die anyway, possibly with great suffering?

Again, the overwhelming number of abortions performed are NOT for reasons such as this. Even so, I know of a few situations where parents were given grave predictions about their baby, and he/she went on to live a full life. I think doctors need to honor the Hippcratic oath here: "Do no harm." If the baby dies, then it dies. But don't kill the baby because it might die.
.
What about the baby who is born into extreme poverty....

You mean, like Abraham Lincoln? Like Jesus?

...or unwanted...

With all due respect, that's the WHOLE issue here, isn't it?

...or to parents who are (for whatever reason) completely unfit to be parents?

Adoption

What about the baby, when choosing the baby's life over that of the mother, means other children, already living, will grow up without a mother?

If you're referring to protecting the life of the mother, I think just about every pro-life person (myself included) supports abortion rights in that case.
.
What about the baby who is already dead in its mother's womb? Would you insist she should carry that child to term? Do you have any idea how cruel that is?

Come on, PaperTurtle! It seems like you're just going off here. I never said anything like this. IF the baby is already dead, then it's already dead. OF COURSE....you get the baby's body out of the mother - and do so with the utmost regard for the mother's health and well-being.

If there were moral/ethical issues regarding prostate health or male pattern baldness, I would not presume to know how it would feel to be a male with those conditions, nor would I presume to know what would be right for a male.

If I were going through a male-oriented health issue, I would want my wife involved.

You simply do not know what it is like to be a woman. You might be able to identify with a woman's feelings. You might have sympathy for her situation, but you have no idea how it feels to be pregnant, all the issues involved, for *any* woman, whether or not she is considering an abortion.

True, but does this mean I can't speak to ANYTHING women do? Forget abortion. Can I not have an opinion, speak out, vote, or actively seek to influence society on ANY decision, issue, or action that pertains to women?

How far do you take this, PaperTurtle? I have a close friend who is a police officer in Fairfax County. He was involved in an investigation of an 18-month old baby/toddler that had been sexually abused. Turns out the 14-year old mother is being questioned and will probably be indicted. Should only women be involved in this investigation?

If you're going to make the argument that men need to stay away from women-related issues, then you have to LOGICALLY extend that across the board. You can't arbitrarily circle the wagons around pregnancy only.

Especially since we're dealing with another human life - not just the mother.

.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

» paper_turtle - Answering PT

In response to Answering PT posted by BrianTubbs:

I'm not going to debate the issue of when a foetus becomes human because--as I see it--both of us are talking about opinions, not fact.
.
Remote possibility aside, women in those situations should be allowed an abortion if this is their choice. The responsibility should rest with them, not the government. Even one woman deprived of an abortion in those circumstances is too much, especially if you're the woman in dire straits.
.
What about the baby who is born into extreme poverty....

You mean, like Abraham Lincoln? Like Jesus?
.
No--I'm talking the person without a home. The person who doesn't have a clue where her next scrap of food is coming from. The person who can't afford any kind of health care. The person who starves herself so her children can eat. Compared to them, Lincoln lived in the lap of luxury. So did Jesus.
.
...or unwanted...
.
With all due respect, that's the WHOLE issue here, isn't it?
.
No, its not the whole issue. Not at all.
.
.
What about the baby, when choosing the baby's life over that of the mother, means other children, already living, will grow up without a mother?
.
If you're referring to protecting the life of the mother, I think just about every pro-life person (myself included) supports abortion rights in that case.
.
I beg to differ. There have been several cases reported in the national news where pro-life people stepped in and took legal action to prevent an abortion which would have saved the woman's life. One of those pro-life people, when asked about the children who would be left motherless, said, in essence, he didn't care. What was right was more important.
.
What about the baby who is already dead in its mother's womb? Would you insist she should carry that child to term? Do you have any idea how cruel that is?

Come on, PaperTurtle! It seems like you're just going off here. I never said anything like this. IF the baby is already dead, then it's already dead. OF COURSE....you get the baby's body out of the mother - and do so with the utmost regard for the mother's health and well-being.
.
No, I'm not getting off. A D & E (what pro-life refers to as a "partial birth abortion") is one of the methods choice in removing a dead foetus from a mother's womb. I was thinking about my daughter, who lost a child earlier this year, and had to unndergo a D & E. I was thinking about how cruel it would have been had she had to carry that child to term.
.
.
If there were moral/ethical issues regarding prostate health or male pattern baldness, I would not presume to know how it would feel to be a male with those conditions, nor would I presume to know what would be right for a male.
.
If I were going through a male-oriented health issue, I would want my wife involved.
.
Yes, but would you want an all-woman supreme court telling you you couldn't have a procedure which would alleviate your suffering because THEY deemed it immoral/unethical (while you did not)? Would you not feel just the least bit miffed because no one consulted you (or at least some male representatives) in making their decision?
.
.
You simply do not know what it is like to be a woman. You might be able to identify with a woman's feelings. You might have sympathy for her situation, but you have no idea how it feels to be pregnant, all the issues involved, for *any* woman, whether or not she is considering an abortion.

True, but does this mean I can't speak to ANYTHING women do? Forget abortion. Can I not have an opinion, speak out, vote, or actively seek to influence society on ANY decision, issue, or action that pertains to women?
.
Of course you can. I'd have to say that since women have plenty of opinions about what would be best for men (wink). But when it comes to issues that you or I can't personally experience, I think we need to be aware we may not be able to *fully* understand.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

.

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Brian Tubbs - Where PT & I Agree

In response to Answering PT posted by paper_turtle:

Two areas of common ground...

First, I believe a woman should have the right to an abortion when her life is at stake. Most pro-lifers that I know are with me in this. I think it's outrageous what that so-called "pro-lifer" said - the one you quoted. Absolutely unbelievable, and I can understand women being pretty rankled that a clueless, insensitive brickhead like that would be in a position to pass laws that affect their health and bodies.

Second, if the fetus is already dead, then I completely support whatever medical procedure the doctor recommends is best for that woman. I haven't read the fine print of the abortion law that the High Court ruled on, but I would be very, very surprised if it interfered with a situation where the baby is already dead.

We have common ground on these two points, as far as I can tell.

» Brian Tubbs - Women

I should point out that I know quite a few women who are pro-life. The pro-life movement is not all-male.

You're liable to counter that most women are pro-choice. Again, let me remind everyone that MOST public opinion polls show strong support for RESTRICTING abortion access - and that includes female poll respondents.

I know of very, very few people, PaperTurtle, who support a woman's right to choose an abortion for ANY reason and at ANY point of her pregnancy right on up to delivery day. Very, very, VERY few.

» Brian Tubbs - PERSPECTIVE

Respectfully, the pro-choice lobby has overblown this Court ruling - along with people like Pink, who kicked off this thread. Women are NOT on the verge of losing their access to abortion services.

This ruling pertains to ONE procedure, and even to the extent that it might portend other Supreme Court rulings....consider that it was FIVE to FOUR.

Pro-choicers here and everywhere can rest assured that Roe v. Wade is in no danger of being overturned anytime soon. There are probably only three justices that would vote to outright overturn it. And even if that happened...

Overturning Roe v. Wade would NOT - repeat NOT - make abortion illegal in the United States. That's one of the biggest myths. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, then the issue of abortion would be handed to the STATES.

State legislatures would then consider restrictions on abortion. You'd have a situation where many states would have complete open access to abortion - and others would have fairly serious restrictions. I don't think ANY state would outright ban the procedure.

But, frankly, pro-choicers are forever pointing out how public opinion polls show support for the pro-choice position. If so, then you all have nothing to worry about. If the American people are pro-choice, then the laws will reflect pro-choice policies PROVIDED the courts are out of the way.

» pink101 - Women & Off Topic

In response to Women posted by BrianTubbs:
.
We are off topic here; but, personally, I don't see why we should think of this as a man and or woman question. I see it as an individual woman having a right to control her own body regardless of wether or not other men OR WOMEN think she should or not. There is only ONE reason to oppose her right and that has to do with the idea that the growth inside her body has a soul or not--it's a religious decision and, as such, our government should keep its nose out of the woman's right to choose.
.
That's my sense on the subject.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Soul

In response to Women & Off Topic posted by pink101:
There is only ONE reason to oppose her right and that has to do with the idea that the growth inside her body has a soul or not....
But, WAIT a minute there, Pink. Not everyone believes in the reality of the soul - for anyone (baby or adult). Your point is fine for a religious faith group to contemplate - in terms of how they will counsel their members on the subject, etc.

What you're doing, Pink, is using a RELIGIOUS argument to say that RELIGION has no place in public policy. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.