RE: More dicussion of abortion

[Guest guest]

Robyn Thunderchild wrote:

> First, no it is not alright to kill fleas, gnats, etc...; unless your

> life is threatened, and all non-lethal means of defense have been

> exhausted, after all means of prevention have failed. The formula is the

> same, whether the assailant is human or non-human. It never changes. Every

> living being has the right to defend him-herself from unprovoked attack.

> And, in worst case, mosquitoes can literally bleed you to death. So the

> question is: have you tried every non-lethal means of repelling them? And

> going deeper, have you taken the long-term steps to avoid such a

> confrontation entirely?

>

I agree with you on this - I personally do not take insect life

intentionally. I was using this to illustrate that most people have a

cut-off point where it has to be recognised that compassion can only extend

just so far. That point varies from person to person, from the (in my

opinion) extreme case of a carnivore who believes that animal suffering is

justified if it puts food on their plate, to the other extreme where some

religions require adherents to sweep the ground before them to avoid

stepping on tiny life. My own cut-off point is where the taking of life is

undetectable by the owner of that life (for example insensate organisms

such as carrots and unformed foetal matter), where there is no

consciousness. I realise that leaves me open to the argument that I would

presumably advocate killing comatose people, please believe me that I am not

dogmatic on this point and would obviously look at each case individually.

I would not advocate abortion of a foetus beyond the stage where the nervous

system is functioning, for example, nor of comatose people where there is

any chance whatsoever that consciousness may return

..

> Point being, killing is murder unless in wholly justified

> self-defense, and then only as a last- and I mean truly last- resort. Even

> then, it must be regarded as a tragedy, and the most extreme measures must

> be taken to correct whatever imbalance created this tragedy, so that it

> does not recur. Life is precious. Abortion is murder, because it does not

> fulfill ANY of the above-mentioned criteria to be otherwise categorized.

>

There are those (very few) who would go further than you and say that it is

not even justifiable to kill in self-defense. Life is precious, up to a

point. I believe that quality of life is *more* precious - my point being

that your comments are absolutist, you write as though presenting facts

rather than opinion. I come back to my cut-off point argument - if you

truly believe that " the most extreme measures must be taken to correct

whatever imbalance created this tragedy " , then presumably you will never

drive or ride in a car for fear of killing insects or other animals, nor

walk down the street without examining each piece of pavement before placing

your foot on it, etc. etc. to the point of absurdity. Abortion is not

murder (in my opinion) so long as it is performed before the foetus is

capable of suffering. (Also, as a side issue, what about killing to prevent

suffering before inevitable death? Where do you stand on euthanasia in

humans and animals?)

 

> Next, the fact that we have an over-population problem- and God knows,

> we do- is not justification for the murder of a baby, any more than going

> out in the street and mowing down innocent bystanders with a machine-gun

> is justifiable as a method of population control.

I agree - there is no justification for murder of a baby, nor mowing down

bystanders, I never implied as much. But I do believe that over-population

is justification for preventing a baby, which is how I regard early

abortion.

> Come on, now; for real.

Yes, for real!

 

> And, I might point out, there is an average 4-year waiting list for

> parents wishing to adopt in most states.

You might indeed point this out - I would guess that the wait is pretty much

the same in the UK, I have a friend who is trying to adopt who has been

waiting easily that long. However, there are also thousands of children

waiting to be adopted for years on end. Having some (second-hand)

experience of the adoption process, I would conclude that this is more to do

with inefficient procedures than with there being untold numbers of couples

eager to adopt a child, any child.

 

> If you are concerned about over-population (as we all should be), use

> contraception or practice abstinence.

You could have worked out from the fact that I am 43 and childless that I do

indeed practice either contraception or abstinence, thank you for the

instruction, however we all know that contraception is not 100% effective -

also that rapists (heaven forbid) rarely practice it. Not every woman who

becomes pregnant does so through carelessness.

 

> Next, it doesn't matter how early you abort, you're still killing.

> Life isn't measured in degrees; life is life. And we can say 'cells' until

> we're blue in the face; it doesn't make it true. Not cells, BABY.

Not BABY, potential BABY. Frogspawn is not frogs. A seed is not a tree.

But yes, you're right, killing IS killing, life IS life. It's just that in

my opinion killing is not always murder. You regard a cell as a baby from

the moment it is fertilised, I would guess from what you have said. I

don't. As a matter of interest, do you want to see the contraceptive coil

banned? Or is implantation your cut-off point?

 

> You can call a tree a windmill, but it's not a windmill, it's a tree. And,

> at the risk of utilizing a cliche', she's not a choice, she's a child.

> Whether or not you love her, God loves her.

That presumes that there is any such thing. Again, purely a matter of

opinion.

 

> Next, I do not think it is selfish to choose not to have children. Why

> would that be selfish? It's your life, it's your decision.

Thank you for your words of support. However I should have phrased my words

more clearly - I do not consider myself selfish for not breeding, rather I

made my decision not to breed because I recognise that I am selfish and I do

not believe that selfish people make good parents.

> But once you DO have a child, it is indeed selfish (to say the least) to

> kill your child because he/she doesn't fit in with your plans.

Absolutely! Once you have a child it is indeed wrong to kill it. But if

all you have is an early pregnancy - no. I cannot believe that it is better

to bring an unwanted child into the world than to abort an unwanted

pregnancy.

 

> Sorry, too late- now it's NOT just 'your' life. Deal with it.

>

Is there any phrase in the English language more irritating than " Deal with

it " ? Unless perhaps it's " Get over it " . Both are best avoided if one is

not seeking to inflame further what is already a contentious issue. To

address your actual point, yes, there are two lives to be considered when a

pregnancy is discovered. You seem to believe that only one of them is worth

consideration. The effects on the woman and her family that could result

from a hated pregnancy seem not to enter into your equation. I have spent

much time thinking over your arguments in this thread - maybe you could

spend a little time considering that point.

 

> <snip of responses to arguments that I did not put forward>

>

> We can dance around the issue forever, but it's all smoke. There's an

> inescapable truth here, and it is a point so central to our entire

> philosophical stance, that unless we resolve it, we will never be taken

> seriously as a movement. Conversely, if we DO collectively face the truth,

> we will be unstoppable. Truth is powerful, my friends. Truth is a

> juggernaut. And remember- if her life is negotiable today, might not yours

> be tomorrow? Bet on it.

>

" Inescapable truth " smacks less of debate and more of pontification. As I

see it, I became a vegan to prevent suffering. A cluster of cells that

would in time grown into a baby is not (to the best of current knowledge)

capable of suffering. Therefore I personally do not see abortion as a vegan

issue (in which case I am way off-topic!). I recognise that others do,

however, and I respect that opinion. I also respect your right to hold the

opinions you do, but I should be very surprised if a universal declaration

of opposition to abortion by the vegan movement would change the world's

opinion of us or our lifestyle. (If I thought it would convert the rest of

the world to veganism then I would change my stance in an instant!). Please

recognise that your truth is not necessarily my truth and that none of us

can truly know which if either is THE truth.

 

> Peace and Blessings, Love and light,

> Robyn Unicorn Thunderchild.

>

>

Cheers!

Cathy.

[Guest guest]

I will make this my last statement on the subject on this list, since 1) it

seems we are being asked to desist, and I will respect that request, as it

is not my list, and 2) I have addressed, and responded to, every point that

has been raised.

The final thought I will leave you with is this: you are absolutely

right, I am pontificating, not debating. Was that not clear? Some things are

not debatable; some things are set in stone. And therein lies the real

issue: today, so many people like to believe that everything is a matter of

opinion. It is not. There is right, and wrong. There is good, and evil. I

have seen evil. I have seen things done in this world that most people think

could only occur in a nightmare. Moral relativism is the greatest threat

facing the world. It is time to take a stand, and face evil for what it is.

If we deny it's presence, we cannot fight it. For all things, there are

consequences. These positions we cling to, and actions we take, will be

accounted for. And as for God being a matter of opinion, all I can say is,

you are in for a very interesting encounter. If anyone wishes to speak

further with me, feel free to contact me privately. I am (very) overworked,

so please be patient, I will respond when I can. May our most loving Lord

have mercy upon us all.

Peace and Blessings, Love and Light,

Robyn Unicorn Thunderchild.