RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Abortion - was Missouri Young Republicans?

["Brent Deterding" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Seems like a reasonable position - I happen to disagree. I believe life begins
at conception. As such - if that egg is fertilized you have life - it's a moral
thing. Ending life is murder, so I'm against abortions. 

I seriously question why we can't all agree that abortions after a baby is
viable is horrendous. I don't honestly know what, if any, argument there is
against it?

-- Brent 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMAIL:PROTECTED 
> [mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Miller
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 11:15 AM
> To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
> Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Abortion - was Missouri 
> Young Republicans?
> 
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> 
> > I see this issue as being as vital and important as the 
> slavery issue 
> > 150 years ago (an issue in which the Republicans also took 
> the "right"
> > side against the Democrats).  Indeed it is interesting that such 
> > reformers as Susan B. Anthony, as well as fighting for the 
> rights of 
> > women, were also strongly abolishonist, and pro-life, seeing all 
> > issues as equally involving the rights of people (women, 
> black people, 
> > unborn babies respectively).
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> 
> > What really brings home the abortion issue to me is a story 
> I remember 
> > a few years ago where some kids murdered their baby just 
> after it was 
> > born.  There was a great sense of outrage around the 
> country as these 
> > people were brought to justice.  On the other hand, if they 
> had more 
> > sense, they could have had a legal abortion a few weeks 
> earlier, and 
> > no-one apart from a few deomonstrators outside the abortion clinic 
> > would have been bothered.  I can see no moral difference between 
> > aborting the baby and waiting until it is born before 
> killing it - yet 
> > the laws in this country differ very widely.
> 
> I think we see the problem in much the same way but have 
> different views. 
> Looking at the end of gestation, there is obviously a major 
> problem in distinguishing abortion from infanticide -- 
> ultimately, they are the same thing!  At the early end of 
> gestation, it is difficult to distinguish contraception 
> (e.g., birth control pills) from abortions.  Where can lines 
> be drawn and how can we make rational choices about laws?
> 
> Here's what I think (and I don't expect you to agree):  We 
> can allow abortion before a fetus has reached the stage of 
> viability (prior to 20 weeks, say) because it is still fully 
> dependent on the mother and not an independently-functioning 
> being.  A woman should have the right to end her pregnancy.  
> After 20 weeks, the fetus is viable and should not be aborted 
> unless it is seriously ill or deformed, or the life of the 
> mother is in jeopardy.  Women who want abortions will have to 
> have them early enough and if they wait too long, they will 
> have to put their babies up for adoption if they don't want 
> them.  That seems reasonable to me.  If we allow early 
> deliveries of premature babies, we'll suffer a huge burden of 
> medical costs and infant illness.
> 
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> 

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion