addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

"New York Philosophy" Message Board › The Only Right

The Only Right

A former member
Post #: 96
The following encapsulizes why the Right To choose is not a matter of the Courts or The People, but is unalienable and anything that goes against it unconstitutional:

The Religious Right's Culture of Living Death
Thursday, April 19, 2007
By: Alex Epstein


Applauding the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a ban on so-called partial birth abortions, President Bush called it a victory for "building a culture of life in America."

The idea of a "culture of life" has been a rallying cry for religious conservatives in their opposition to all abortion and embryonic stem cell research, and in their opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide. By doing everything possible to preserve embryos, fetuses, and the incurably ill or vegetative, they say, we will bring about a "culture of life." "The problem we face . . ." declares conservative icon Rush Limbaugh, "is . . . a culture of death. From abortion on demand . . . to embryonic stem cell research [to] assisted suicide . . ."

But what would life actually be like in their "culture of life"?

Consider a world in which abortion were illegal--which is the exact meaning of the President's pledge, following the Supreme Court's verdict, to "continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law." Pregnant women who rationally desired to abort--whether because of accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, or danger to their lives--would be forced to undergo 20 years of enslavement to the needs of children they did not want to give birth to, or attempt dangerous, back-alley abortions, the kind that crippled or killed untold numbers of women before Roe v. Wade. To prohibit abortion would be to sentence countless women to spiritual--and sometimes literal--death.

Or consider another staple of the "culture of life"--a world in which euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal. Individuals with incurable and unbearable diseases would not be able to die with dignity at a time of their own choosing, but would be subjected to a protracted existence of often unspeakable agony. Their loved ones would have to endure torturous months or years seeing what was once a vibrant human being persist as a mass of pain or as a vegetable--just as, in the now-famous case of Terry Schiavo, her husband Michael had to see his wife for 15 years in a state incapable of emotion, memory, or thought.

Finally, consider a world without embryonic stem cell research. The stem cells that can be extracted from microscopic, 150-cell embryos have the potential to become any other type of human cell--and thus, say scientists, be used in therapies that could save or enhance millions of lives. To stop stem cell research would be to deprive every one of these millions--including those with heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's--of the possibility of a longer, better life.

To uphold these positions in the name of the sanctity of life is a colossal fraud. A "culture of life" would not benefit human life, but cause massive suffering and death.

What could possibly justify the religious conservatives' crusade for such a world? "God's will," they answer. Our lives belong to a supernatural being, they say, and He commands us not to end them "unnaturally," no matter how unbearable they become. He sanctifies bits of protoplasm, they say, and thus commands young women to abandon their ambitions in order to raise unwanted children, and commands everyone to abandon the breathtaking promise of a new field of research.

This is the rise of the same medieval mentality that demanded rejection of the life-enhancing developments of anesthesia, the dissection of corpses, and birth control.

The religious conservatives do not value actual human life; they are consistent followers of the Christian ideal that human life is properly lived in sacrifice to a supernatural being, and that suffering is proof of virtue. The worship of suffering is fundamental to Christianity, a religion whose central figure is glorified for dying a horrific death for the sins of mankind. Several years ago, a prominent religious conservative said of the Schiavo case, "Terry Schiavo . . . is suffering in obedience to God's will." He added: "Isn't suffering in pursuit of God's will the exact center of religious life?"

This is the culture of death--of living death.

Human life is sacred--not because of supernatural declaration, but because of the unique nature and glorious potential of the individual, rational human life: to think, to create, to love, to experience pleasure, to achieve happiness here on earth. A genuine culture of life would leave individuals free to pursue their own happiness--free from coercive injunctions to sacrifice themselves to religious dogma. Such a culture is what we must seek to create, as we do everything possible to fight religious conservatives' culture of living death.

Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org
A former member
Post #: 97
Adding to this, why the Right To Choose movement does not fight this on a Rights basis but instead lock swords with the opposition on the same ethic only they know - or perhaps they do not realize?

Choosing the next Prez. will dictate the legal morality in America. An immovable judge - life long tenure - was an issue that Aristotle wrestled with.

The issue is more frightening than any other in government.
PiWi
user 3398759
Virginia Water, GB
Post #: 59
Adding to this, why the Right To Choose movement does not fight this on a Rights basis but instead lock swords with the opposition on the same ethic only they know - or perhaps they do not realize?

Choosing the next Prez. will dictate the legal morality in America. An immovable judge - life long tenure - was an issue that Aristotle wrestled with.

The issue is more frightening than any other in government.

Amen.

The problem is the american people has at best a lukewarm support for the right to choose. See article below. I suppose that's not very surprising given the correlated religious statistics.

======================================­==================
1/16/06

New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll conducted by CBS News finds a majority of Americans oppose virtually all abortions in the United States. Those polled said they want either no abortions to occur or for abortion to be limited to very rare circumstances.

Some 55 percent of Americans took a pro-life position on abortion. Of those, 33 percent said abortions should be "permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life."

The survey found 17 percent said they would limit abortion only to cases where a woman's life is in danger and 5 percent said abortions should never be permitted.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research group affiliated with Planned Parenthood, conducted a comprehensive survey in 2004 to find out why women have abortions.

Asked to list the most important reason for the abortion, just 4.5 percent of women cited rape, incest or the pregnancy causing life-threatening or severe health problems. Just .5 percent of women said the abortion was because they were a victim of rape.

As a result, 55 percent of those polled indicated they oppose 95 percent or more of the 1.3 million abortions annually in the United States.

Just 42 percent in the CBS News poll indicated they support legalized abortion, with 27 percent saying abortion should be permitted in all cases. Some 15 percent indicated they backed legal abortion but believed it should be "subject to greater restrictions than it is now."

That means 70 percent of Americans in the CBS News poll believe greater limits should be placed on abortions.

CBS News conducted the same poll in July 2005 and found a 53-43 percent pro-life breakdown on abortion -- a net change of 3 percent in favor of the pro-life position n the January 2006 poll.

The CBS News poll featured telephone interviews with 1,151 American adults and was conducted from January 4-8. The margin of error is 3 percent.
A former member
Post #: 251
To PWi,

And even then when does a fetus threaten a woman's life? It's very hard for a woman to die in childbirth these days.
A former member
Post #: 98
Adding to this, why the Right To Choose movement does not fight this on a Rights basis but instead lock swords with the opposition on the same ethic only they know - or perhaps they do not realize?

Choosing the next Prez. will dictate the legal morality in America. An immovable judge - life long tenure - was an issue that Aristotle wrestled with.

The issue is more frightening than any other in government.

Amen.

The problem is the american people has at best a lukewarm support for the right to choose. See article below. I suppose that's not very surprising given the correlated religious statistics.

======================================­==================
1/16/06

New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll conducted by CBS News finds a majority of Americans oppose virtually all abortions in the United States. Those polled said they want either no abortions to occur or for abortion to be limited to very rare circumstances.

Some 55 percent of Americans took a pro-life position on abortion. Of those, 33 percent said abortions should be "permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life."

The survey found 17 percent said they would limit abortion only to cases where a woman's life is in danger and 5 percent said abortions should never be permitted.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research group affiliated with Planned Parenthood, conducted a comprehensive survey in 2004 to find out why women have abortions.

Asked to list the most important reason for the abortion, just 4.5 percent of women cited rape, incest or the pregnancy causing life-threatening or severe health problems. Just .5 percent of women said the abortion was because they were a victim of rape.

As a result, 55 percent of those polled indicated they oppose 95 percent or more of the 1.3 million abortions annually in the United States.

Just 42 percent in the CBS News poll indicated they support legalized abortion, with 27 percent saying abortion should be permitted in all cases. Some 15 percent indicated they backed legal abortion but believed it should be "subject to greater restrictions than it is now."

That means 70 percent of Americans in the CBS News poll believe greater limits should be placed on abortions.

CBS News conducted the same poll in July 2005 and found a 53-43 percent pro-life breakdown on abortion -- a net change of 3 percent in favor of the pro-life position n the January 2006 poll.

The CBS News poll featured telephone interviews with 1,151 American adults and was conducted from January 4-8. The margin of error is 3 percent.

Ahh, but you see the opinion of the American people is not relevant. Rights, as the Framers declared are unalienable. They belong to each individual simply because they ARE individuals. The Law Of Identity - Aristotle.

One cannot prohibit or remove something that was not given.

And as everyone is aware America is governed by a Constitution so opinions do not count - albeit that laws are and have been made that further move America in the Statist period.

Any law that infringes rights is an immoral law and is also unconstitutional. The abortion situation also infringes the separation clause because it is Christian doctrine.
A former member
Post #: 99
When does a fetus threaten a woman's life? I can't think of any. Nothing comes to my mind right now.

Well in that case...!
A former member
Post #: 253
Consider a world in which abortion were illegal- quote

1.In the cases of rape and incest I think it should be allowed.

2.There's birth control before an accidental pregnancy happens. You can't be using abortion as a form of birth control.

3.In the case of birth defects that's kind of hard but then again they can give the baby up for adoption.

4.Name one instance when it's a threat to the mother's life. I think they'd make a c-section if there was a threat.


In the case of Terry Schiavo she should've been allowed to live.
Since when do our courts pick death over life at any point?
One person once said ,"We are not allowed to starve a dog in this country and we are going to starve a human being?"

Nobody asked her husband to take care of her. He had a new relationship.
My question is, what did he care if she lived or died?
You only care if you have an interest in it.
How do you know he didn't have a million dollar life insurance policy on her?
As far as I'm concerned they murdered someone's child.
PiWi
user 3398759
Virginia Water, GB
Post #: 61

2.There's birth control before an accidental pregnancy happens. You can't be using abortion as a form of birth control.

People make mistakes. People change their minds for good reason. If they want to, why should they be denied that choice in particular during stages when the "life" in question is a bundle of undifferentiated cells, or a body with no thoughts, emotions, or sensory experience (because the nervous system hasn't evolved yet)?

3.In the case of birth defects that's kind of hard but then again they can give the baby up for adoption.
It's a hard personal choice to make, but it should still be a personal choice. At least in the first few months of pregnancy.


4.Name one instance when it's a threat to the mother's life. I think they'd make a c-section if there was a threat.

The following conditions can make a pregnancy a threat to a mother's life:
- Pregnancy-induced hypertension
- diabetes
- Kidney problems
- heart disease
- Autoimmune disorders
- Epilepsy
- Sexually transmitted diseases
- Cancer (because the mother may have to forego certain therapies)

There a also mental conditions which require constant medication, for which stopping the meds can create dangerous, possibly life-threatening situations.


In the case of Terry Schiavo she should've been allowed to live.
Since when do our courts pick death over life at any point?
One person once said ,"We are not allowed to starve a dog in this country and we are going to starve a human being?"

So let me ask you: in the process of keeping alive a person who is brain-dead and has no chance of a life other than in a vegetative state (ie eternal coma with neither thoughts, nor emotions, nor any sensations or conscious experience of any kind), society will expend resources, money, time. Don't you think those resources would be much better spent helping other people who are not brain-dead, improving and saving lives that are fully conscious?
A former member
Post #: 104
So let me ask you: in the process of keeping alive a person who is brain-dead and has no chance of a life other than in a vegetative state (ie eternal coma with neither thoughts, nor emotions, nor any sensations or conscious experience of any kind), society will expend resources, money, time. Don't you think those resources would be much better spent helping other people who are not brain-dead, improving and saving lives that are fully conscious?
PiWi, consideration of others was and should never be a factor. If that were the reason Schaivo died then it is as immoral as keeping someone that is in a vegetative state artificially alive.

The sole question was what was the best for Terry Schaivo, and this came down to the decision that had to be made by her ex-husband or as expressed when she was conscious.

I recommend watching the movie "Million Dollar Baby" - it is a vehicle for Clint Eastwoods noble ethics and a great movie.
A former member
Post #: 254
To PWi,

People make mistakes.quote

You cannot be using abortion as a way to correct that mistake. It's a growing life inside of you.

A person wants a choice whether or not to kill their baby? The goverment and really everybody recognizes the matter cannot be restricted things happen.

But to push more for the matter so it can be at the beck and call for a person I think the person should be charged with murder.
This is a human life not a piece of property or something.

The government respects the issue that there is a need for it and the pro-abortionist should respect the limitations of it.

The things that you mentioned PWi that are a threat to a mother's life can all be be taken care of with medication and or a c-section (my opinion only of course).

The reason that I said the Terry Schiavo case was wrong in it's decision was because there was a petition for the feeding tube not to be removed.

Why did the court pick death over life?

You asked me, "Don't you think those resources would be much better spent helping other people who are not brain dead improving and saving lives that are fully conscious?"

What is the sole reason for a doctors and hospitals existence? They are there to help people to conquer diseases, conquer physical ailments. And I want to add- she also came out of a 15 year old coma you don't know if she could've became better with physical therapy.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy