A Leauki's Writings
Published on June 20, 2011 By Leauki In Current Events

Despite the author's intentions, "Unnatural Selection" might be one of the most consequential books ever written in the campaign against abortion. It is aimed, like a heat-seeking missile, against the entire intellectual framework of "choice." For if "choice" is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against "gendercide." Aborting a baby because she is a girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or because the mother's "mental health" requires it. Choice is choice. One Indian abortionist tells Ms. Hvistendahl: "I have patients who come and say 'I want to abort because if this baby is born it will be a Gemini, but I want a Libra.' "

This is where choice leads. This is where choice has already led. Ms. Hvistendahl may wish the matter otherwise, but there are only two alternatives: Restrict abortion or accept the slaughter of millions of baby girls and the calamities that are likely to come with it.

I can see both sides. But I think the above is a strong argument, even if I disagree with parts of it.

I do agree with the main point. Abortion should be restricted somehow. It is NOT a neutral medical procedure.

And I think this is actually the first time I have taken a real stance on the issue, other than voicing my personal opinion based on my religion which I never intended to become law.


Comments (Page 2)
on Jun 23, 2011

Leauki
d.<snip>

 

I did not want to repeat your entire post, and yet found it hard to pick one sentence that would define it all, so I did the worst thing, just snipped it all.  Sorry,

The legality or illegality of abortion cannot be decided upon until society decides what is or is not life.  It really has nothing to do with religion.  MY beliefs do.  But my beliefs, my religion is not society.  Therefore, making abortion illegal is an option.  If that is the final findings of society about what is life.  period.  Some religions (cults) like to sacrifice virgins, yet society does not allow them to follow their religion.  So it has nothing really to do with religion (other than how each member approaches it).

But abortion was never illegal in the United states.  You will not find that in many places, and especially not by the pro-abortion crowd, but the truth is often inconvenient to the rabid zealots.  Abortion has been illegal in some states in the United States, but it has never been a federal law.  Roe v. Wade basically usurped the states right to chose what their society thought about life.  Since the issue was never decided upon by the society, it continues to be a great source of conflict in this country for that reason.  the UK passed a law.  As did most other countries.  The US never has.

Finally, I again disagree with the mandatory part.  It may be a MANDATORY tenet in the Jewish religion, but that does not make it mandatory for anyone really.  People are constantly violating their faith's tenets (it is called sin).  So while that is your faith, I object to you imposing your will even on another member of your faith.  Clearly a life will perish due to the dilemma.  But the only ones that have a right to decide which life are those that own them.  And since the child has no voice, it falls to the only one with a voice.

My faith says Abortion is murder.  I personally agree with my faith.  However, I know many Catholics (Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, etc.) that would abort a baby for having a wart.  I think they are wrong (and evil, but that is another discussion), but it is not my right to restrict them from doing it.  I disapprove, but I cannot control.  That is why mandatory is too strong a term (IMHO).

on Jun 29, 2011

Dr Guy
It may be a MANDATORY tenet in the Jewish religion, but that does not make it mandatory for anyone really.

Who said it would?

 

People are constantly violating their faith's tenets (it is called sin). So while that is your faith, I object to you imposing your will even on another member of your faith.

When did I do that?

 

on Jun 29, 2011

Dr Guy
I think they are wrong (and evil, but that is another discussion), but it is not my right to restrict them from doing it. I disapprove, but I cannot control. That is why mandatory is too strong a term (IMHO).

The US are supposed to be a secular state. That means that either no religion should have any influence on politics based on it being a religion or all religions should be accomodated as well as they can be.

If abortion is illegal, many people cannot practice their religion (like Judaism which mandates abortion in certain circumstances) and many people cannot escape religion (like people who believe that a foetus is not a human being).

I only see three solutions for this problem:

1. A strong man makes a decision when life starts and hence when human rights start for biomass.

2. The people regularly vote (or their representatives do) on that subject.

3. We find a compromise somehow.

 

on Jun 29, 2011

Very well stated Leauki 

on Jun 29, 2011

Leauki
When did I do that?

it was the royal you - not you Leauki.

on Jun 29, 2011

Leauki
The US are supposed to be a secular state. That means that either no religion should have any influence on politics based on it being a religion or all religions should be accomodated as well as they can be.

no, a secular state means there is no religious test of laws or public officials.  religion will always have influence as those following it are going to be making the laws.  So the constitution made sure that one religion (the majority at the time - Christian) could not write laws that would adversely affect other religions (banning atheism or Mormonism) within reason.

But the second part of your statement also goes to the issue at hand.  "accommodated as well as they can be".  In other words, no virgin sacrifices.  That also goes to abortion.  Should it be decided (or proven - the less likely scenario) that human life begins at conception, then abortion is murder - the same as virgin sacrifices - and no religious tenets can be used to circumvent that law.  Judaism also has a teaching about stoning those caught in adultery - yet that part of the religion (although not practiced today) is not permitted.

As for your 3 scenarios, the first is too much like religion and I hope never comes to pass (although with this president, it is not beyond the realm of possibility with his insistence on ignoring laws he does not like).  The last unfortunately is not possible as you are asking some to "half kill" an individual.  Which leaves the second one, and that is what this country needs.  However it has been denied that right and privilege due to extremely bad case law.  So it will take a constitutional amendment (or much less likely, a reversal of a bad ruling) to allow the American people to decide that for themselves.  At this time, should it ever be put to a vote, I can almost guarantee you that Abortion would not be made illegal.  However, by the same token, i can almost guarantee you that significant restrictions would be placed upon it in all states.  The problem is, those restrictions, in many states, would be arbitrary (such as the topic du jour - gendercide).  A woman who wants a boy will find an excuse to abort a girl.

on Jun 29, 2011

Test reply

on Jun 29, 2011

Leauki
1. A strong man makes a decision when life starts and hence when human rights start for biomass.

I've been reading about the attempts at population control in the Philippines and how the well funded abortion industry is currently trying to ram new legislation through that would cripple the birthrates.  Leauki, the "strong men" here would be those legislators in the Phillipines. The Phillipine Constitution in Article II, Section 12 provides that the "State shall equally protect the life of...the unborn from conception."  The Phillipine Congress wanting to leave no doubt about its intentions and no room for misinterpretation, defined the word conception in medical terms, as the fertilization of the ovum.

The Phillipines is the last country standing (majority Catholic btw) that recognizes and values appropriately that women conceive and nurture new human life.

Dr Guy
no, a secular state means there is no religious test of laws or public officials. religion will always have influence as those following it are going to be making the laws. So the constitution made sure that one religion (the majority at the time - Christian) could not write laws that would adversely affect other religions (banning atheism or Mormonism) within reason.

Good job explaining that.

Dr Guy
Should it be decided (or proven - the less likely scenario) that human life begins at conception, then abortion is murder -

It's already been proven Doc, but the abortion crowd likes to engage in the obvious subterfuge.

Claiming that human life does not begin in the womb violates not only science, but common sense as well.

 

on Jun 29, 2011
Which leaves the second one, and that is what this country needs. However it has been denied that right and privilege due to extremely bad case law. So it will take a constitutional amendment (or much less likely, a reversal of a bad ruling) to allow the American people to decide that for themselves. At this time, should it ever be put to a vote, I can almost guarantee you that Abortion would not be made illegal. However, by the same token, i can almost guarantee you that significant restrictions would be placed upon it in all states.
 
 To that I'll offer this news report from yesterday.
 
 
 
Court: Conception is beginning of human life
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 6/28/2011 4:45:00 AM

IndianaAlthough a federal judge has temporarily suspended an Indiana law that defunds the state's Planned Parenthoods, an important aspect for the pro-life movement is included in the ruling.

 

 

Even though the overall decision is disappointing for pro-lifers, the order upholds a key provision that requires women to be informed that physical life begins when a human egg is fertilized by a human sperm.

"No one should be allowed to decide that a human innocent life is worthless," contends Alliance Defense Fund attorney Steven H. Aden. "Abortionists have done this by telling women that a pre-born baby is just a batch of cells instead of what he or she actually is -- a human being.

 "This law ends that deception in Indiana," he continues. "All the court did was recognize the indisputable fact that a biological human life begins at conception. It is false to say anything else."

He says the ruling simply recognizes a biological fact, and he points out that the court disagreed with Planned Parenthood's argument that the statement is misleading. Meanwhile, the Indiana attorney general's office is expected to appeal the decision, which allows Medicaid funds to continue flowing into the coffers of abortion-providers.

on Jul 04, 2011

India: rewards offered in new bid to stop sex-selection abortion

RSS Facebook July 04, 2011

The Indian Medical Association, the country’s largest group of physicians, is offering financial reward to anyone who can help identify doctors performing illegal sex-determination tests on unborn children.

Plagued by sex-selection abortions, which have caused a severe imbalance in the ratio of male to female babies, India has outlawed sex-selection abortion (although abortion is generally legal) and even banned sex-determination tests. But many doctors apparently ignore the law.

On July 1—“Doctors’ Day” in India—the Medical Association announced a plan to give $2,250 to anyone who could provide evidence leading to the prosecution of doctors who perform sex-determination tests. The group promised to keep the informers’ names secret.

The campaign against sex-selection abortions took on new energy when a doctor in New Delhi, who had been at the forefront of the campaign, was exposed for having performed the same illegal sex-determination tests that she had publicly condemned.

The nationwide census in 2011 confirmed the severity of India’s problem, showing that there are 7 million girl babies “missing” in the population under the age of 6, evidently as the result of sex-selection abortions.

on Jul 05, 2011

LEAUKI posts #8

I disagree with the proposal that abortion of a child with a genetic disorder (like Down syndrome) is the same as abortion of a child because she is a girl or the wrong star sign. (Of course I don't even believe in the latter being a notable difference at all.) I can understand a woman who aborts a child because of a genetic disorder. She does it because she feels she cannot handle more responsibility then she signed up for. It's not the same as aborting a healthy child.

 

If we reflect upon Abortion a bit deeper, that is for what abortion IS, we find that all abortions are the same. Simply put,  all Abortions are performed for one reason and one reason only...namely, to kill the new human life growing inside the womb.

Where we differ is that you and abortion advocates believe that by abortion, it's OK for individuals to kill other individuals in the womb but that individual is not a human being with human rights. 

Note that as a potential life form the foetus does warant protection. It may not be aborted for no good reason because potential life is worth more than no life at all. And only lifeless things may be treated arbitrarily and without respect.

Those things underlined are either myths, errors or lies of the pro-abortion camp.

"Potential" life form the foetus?  Is not the "thing" in the womb of a pregnant woman alive? Of course it is and it would be absurd to deny this. It takes nourishment and grows and that is the elementary school definition of a human living thing. 

 

Finally, I do not believe that an unborn child is a human being or even a lifeform before it starts growing (i.e. within the first trimester). It is only a potential life form.

The thing growing in the womb of a pregnant woman is alive and it's not some unknown species. We have ultrasounds that prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the thing growing in the womb, it's little heart beatuing, taking nourishment, is a living human being.  

Abortion advocates know perfectly well that abortion takes the life of a human being. There is no doubt on that. That's why they withhold information from women in order to influence their decision to have the abortion.

Even if abortion is totally legal, children should not be aborted for arbitrary reasons.

Isn't aborting a child with a genetic disorder an arbitrary reason? Of course it is.

on Jul 11, 2011

As with sex selection abortion, this too is very troubling.

 

India: bishops condemn sex-change operations for infant girls

  July 11, 2011

The Indian episcopal conference has “strongly condemned” sex-change operations performed on infant girls at the request of their parents. In Indore--a city of 1.5 million in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh--some 300 girls under the age of one have reportedly been victims of the operation.

“We have strongly condemned, as Indian bishops, this horrible practice,” said Father Charles Irudayam, an official of the Episcopal Conference of India. “It is the result of a mindset that favors [the] male as a source of profit and as a son of greater value, mortifying the dignity of women.”

“We knew about the phenomenon of selective abortion which, according to some studies, over the past 20 years has concerned more than five million young girls,” he added. “Now surgery emerges … A lot needs to be done--just like what the Church is doing--to spread a culture of equality and to promote the dignity and the rights of women in society. But we have to fight a rooted mindset, and [it] is therefore a work that takes time.”

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

Meta
Views
» 683
Comments
» 27
Category
Sponsored Links