« New Books Perpetuate Castroite Lies | Babalu Blog - Main Page | A Big Harumph for the Worthless 110th Democratic Congress »

I tutored a kid who had been born at five months. That's twenty weeks. He had some developmental problems but otherwise is fine. So tell me a fetus isn't viable at the time they perform partial birth abortions, and those are donepast the five month mark. Obama stands for nothing. The only change he is touting is whatever is not Bush. He needs no substantial views to push his platform.

Henry,

Saddleback Church is a non-denominational Christian church - that's where we attend. Our Pastor, Rick Warren, wrote the book The Purpose Driven Life and is on the cover of Time magazine this week.

Having the two candidates involved in that civil forum was genius. He asked them both exactly the same questions, while the other candidate was off-stage.

It made the differences between Obama and McCain GLARINGLY obvious.

I think Obama was trying to gain mainstream Christian sympathy by agreeing to appear, but managed all on his own to show his true colors. It was brilliant.

Life begins at conception. Anyone who disagrees needs to take it up with God.

Besos,
Marta

In my opinion, the When-Does-It-Become-Human (and thus have human rights) question has been framed the wrong way for some time now, at least in terms of how the law deals with it today.

The debate has always been premised on viability outside the womb, which on the surface would appear reasonable, but it's not. Viability outside the womb varies as time goes by and from place to place because it is determined by the available medical technology.

So it is the capability of currently available machines/equipment/supplies that determines the baby's viability (and thus its humanity) not the inherent, intrinsic nature of the baby/fetus itself.

So theoretically, you could take a pregnant woman across a state line or national border and depending on the relative medical capabilities available in each place (on which the local laws governing abortion would have to be based according to this logic), the baby is human on one side of the border, and then suddenly is not, for reasons having nothing to do with the nature of the baby itself.

Downright Orwellian.

Zhangliqun,

Agreed but I think most people can relate to viability outside the womb. It's a simple concept that can illustrate the point. Another reason why so many people feel so squeamish about abortion these days despite the longstanding Roe v. Wade ruling is the development of sonograms that show the baby with amazing clarity.

Also we have 35 years of post-abortion trauma stories.

Like I said, on the surface it appears reasonable, but the idea that a child's humanity is determined by something so ephemeral and irrelevant to what constitutes one's humanity as the evolution and local availability of medical technology should be absolutely frightening. It's like determining whether a hunk of shiny metal is gold by the market price of coffee beans in Lithuania on alternate Tuesdays.

A coin flip would be more direct and honest.

I can't say I agree completely with the analogy. Advances in technology have actually helped further the debate for pro-lifers because we can see more than ever that fetal life is actual life. That doesn't mean the argument ends there. It just is more ammunition. I welcome any advancement in technology that shifts the debate in such a way. And I could argue that just because medicine is not practiced uniformly around the world that doesn't mean we can't learn from medicine practiced at it's highest level. What I mean is that just because a 20-week fetus can't survive in guatemala doesn't mean that it's not theoretically viable. In a sense what you are arguing could be used for other diseases. Like saying because a remote area of Africa has no access to drugs that AIDS patients there are not alive. The fact is they are alive and could be kept alive if they had the same care as in America. Their status is determined by the highest common denominator not the lowest.

What is so fundamentally wrong about the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is that it took away the debate! In state legislatures, these debates were being had and decisions were made based on arguments presented. This is he way it should be. If the people of San Francisco (to use an example) were to decide that life does not begin until 2 weeks AFTER birth, well, then that is their decision and they would be doing the world a big favor by significantly reducing their future numbers!

:)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: