I am pro-life. On an obvious and most basic level, this means that I am anti-abortion. Sure, I am pro-choice, too. I believe women have the right to be responsible about their own reproductive choices. When you choose to have sex, you choose to accept the potential consequences, one of which is pregnancy. Except in cases of rape and incest (where obviously the victim did not make a choice), that pregnancy represents a choice that was already made, and therefore, choosing to kill the unborn baby represents another choice - the choice to kill an unborn baby. Just as murder is not a choice we "allow" in our society, I don't think that abortion is a choice we should allow if we truly value the sanctity of life (except in the rare cases I mentioned above). a firebomb erupted in the townhouse of assistant biology professor David Feldheim. As smoke and flames filled the first floor, Feldheim, his wife, their 7-year old son and 6 year-old daughter were forced to use a drop ladder to escape from a second floor bedroom. Jerry Vlasak, who, as a spokeman for the Animal Liberation Press Office, serves as an apologist for animal rights zealots, issued this statement: "This is historically what happens whenever revolutionaries begin to take the oppression and suffering of their fellow beings seriously, whether human or nonhuman. It's regrettable that certain scientists are willing to put their families at risk by choosing to do wasteful animal experiments in this day and age". Wow, really? These attempted murderers are "revolutionaries"? The nonhuman "fellow beings" have more value than the family of a scientist? Animal rights activists have no problem potentially killing or maiming children to try and stop animal research? What exactly is this research? Feldheim studies neural connections in the brain and their effect on vision using mice. Other scientists who use animals in their research develop drugs to treat (or even eradicate) cancer, Alzheimer's, AIDS, etc. They develop compounds, and when they think they have one that appears to work on a cellular level, they test it in mice for effectiveness and toxicity. What exactly are the extreme animal activists hoping to accomplish in terrorizing scientists? Have scientists test the drugs on actual humans first instead of mice so that humans can suffer side-effects (possibly death) if the drug or the dose proves too dangerous to go to market? Stop the development of drugs altogether that have the potential to save lives or significantly improve the quality of life for humans? Both of these "solutions" show a clear preference for animal life over human life. Are these activists the same ones advocating for embryonic stem cell research that would destroy viable embryos in the name of scientific research that could "save lives or significantly improve the quality of life for humans"? Oh wait, that DOES devalue (embyonic) human life. Well, as long as they're consistent . . . But, that is not all. I am also pro-life when it comes to the environment. I read this article about couples who are choosing sterilization so they don't "pollute" the environment with children. Toni Vernelli was sterilized at age 27 to reduce her carbon footprint . . . "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet" says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population". While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future. But when she was 25, disaster struck. "I discovered that despite taking the pill, I'd accidentally fallen pregnant by my boyfriend. I was horrified. I knew straight away there was no option of having the baby. I went to the doctor about having a termination, and asked if I could be sterilized at the same time [the doctor said no - sterilization took place two years later as noted above]. I didn't like having a termination, but it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt would only be a burden to the world". Yeah, good thing she did the "moral" thing and chose to have an abortion. Toni is not the only one. Sarah Irving and fiance Mark Hudson opted for Mark to have a vasectomy. From a young age, Sarah dreamed of helping the environment - and as she agonized over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species, and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child . . . "I realized then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do" . . . Mark adds, "we do everything we can do reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child. That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong of me to add to climate change and the destruction of earth . . . What makes us happy is knowing we are doing our bit to save our precious planet." Oh, there's that whole morality thing again. Funny how "morality" is a taboo word when it comes to chastity because it is associated with religion, but perfectly fine when it comes to environmentalism (the religion of some). Anyways, back to post - sure, each of us is responsible for our own choice of whether or not to have children (before we choose to have sex, of course). People who don't want children definitely should not have them - that is just common courtesy to the child! But, I found some of their comments to be a bit chilling. Children are a burden to the world? A sinister threat to the future? Doing "our bit" to "save the planet" means not having children because they will add to climate change and the destruction of the earth?!?!? Since when is "the planet" worth more than a human life? Why does "the planet" even have value? It seems to me that "the planet's" whole purpose is to sustain human life. D&C 104:17 Sure, I am all for doing reasonable things to preserve our environment (particularly for future generations of PEOPLE), but holding the "morality" of environmentalism above the value of children and people in our world reeks of disdain for human life. But, that is not all. Oh, no! That is not all! I am also pro-life when it comes to dying. Barbara Wagner of Oregon was denied cancer treatment by the Oregon Health Plan (the state health program), but was offered pallative care, which includes assisted suicide. Since assisted suicide in Oregon is legal, offering assisted suicide is just one of the many "benefits" of state health care. (Well, that certainly increases my desire for a national health care plan [eyes rolling]. Incidentally, the pharmaceutical company that sells the drug stepped up and is offering a year of treatment to the woman for free - those evil, nasty, for-profit capitalists.) On the other hand, this does have the potential to solve our aging population problem. Instead of actually helping to care for all these elderly people, let's just deny them medical care and instead offer to "assist" them in passing on. When we deem that their cost to society outweighs their contribution, let's put them out of their (and our economic) misery. Plus, it will help the environment! Those liberals think of everything. So, yes, I am a champion for human life - life before birth, life before death, life before the environment, human life before animal life. Considering that so many liberal causes seem to have it the other way around, what does that say about the sanctity of human life?
So, I am pro-life on the issue of abortion. But, that is not all. I am also pro-life on the issue of animal rights. I read this article about how extreme animal rights activists are terrorizing medical researchers into giving up their research for fear of their families' safety. What are some of the tactics of these animals rights activists? Early Saturday morning, For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.
We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan. (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)
The Value of Human Life
Posted by Stephanie on 8/05/2008
Labels: abortion, animal rights, assisted suicide, environmentalism, life, sterilization
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Yea! I've had to deal with animal research issues head on in my work. People who are anti-animal research just have no clue the benefits to mankind. Possibly THE dumbest thing that I've ever heard was on Larry King by (not so surprisingly) Pamela Anderson who said something along the lines of "Animal research has resulted in nothing good for humans." Wrong. In innumerable ways.
I've also heard of a professor's house being bombed because he was using Rhesus monkeys as a model for pharmaceutical studies. I'm sorry, men are more important than monkeys.
And there are very strict rules and regs regarding how these animals are treated. Dogs have to be walked daily, there have to be "toys" in the cages for the animals to use, you have to humanely kill the animals, etc.
I agree. Let's stop killing babies and scientists and old people. I think that this is good common sense.
I do, however, agree with wackos not reproducing.
Stephanie, good post. While I don't agree with several of your arguments, I do support the general sentiment.
I once saw a great bumper sticker that read, "guns don't kill people, fanatical right wing Christians who blow up abortion clinics kill people". Fanaticism is not a liberal disease; wackos in one form or another live on both sides of the aisle.
I am pro-life, too (note the lack of capitalization). Nobody is anti-life, with the possible exception of suicide bombers and those nutty anti-abortion activists. :) Just the use of the term Pro-Life is a ridiculous attempt at monopolizing family values.
As I have stated in a previous comment regarding abortion regulation, I fully support the Church's position, which allows for termination of pregnancy in cases of rape, incest, where the child will not survive long after birth, and where the life or health of the mother are jeopardized. Among conservative religious groups, and certainly among the so-called Pro-Life community, that is a pretty liberal stance.
Some of the animal rights groups are completely over-the-top and excessive, but there are definitely abuses going on that need to be stopped. God granted man dominion over the living things on the Earth, as recorded in Moses 2:28:
And I, God, blessed them, and said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
But we are also commanded to replenish the Earth, and I feel it is indisputable that certain activities performed with animals are in violation of that law. I don't think legitimate drug testing on animals falls into that category, but driving species to extinction for pleasure or excessive consumption (e.g. whaling) may.
With regards to those individuals who sterilize themselves so they don't "burden the world"? Good for them. I'm glad they realize that they aren't prepared to raise a child properly, and in turn avoid doing so. Parents like that would be burdening the world, but it would be their fault, not their child's - that child would likely not be raised in a manner that would be a benefit to society.
Food for thought - is it better that a child be born to unloving, unsupportive parents than to have that pregnancy terminated? I'm not sure at all of the answer to that question.
I do, however, agree with wackos not reproducing.
LOL. I didn't look at it that way.
BBD, I suppose I would be liberal to the "Pro-Life" community, too, then.
Fanaticism is not a liberal disease; wackos in one form or another live on both sides of the aisle.
True, true, true. I'll give you another example. Right-wingers who consider birth-control pills to be abortion and who want them outlawed as well. IMO, that is very extreme.
Food for thought - is it better that a child be born to unloving, unsupportive parents than to have that pregnancy terminated?
These are not the only two options. Adoption is an excellent option that gives the child loving, supportive parents.
These are not the only two options. Adoption is an excellent option that gives the child loving, supportive parents.
Very true.
A few quick points.
First, I don't see how a true "pro-life" advocate can coherently be "against abortion except in cases of rape and incest." If the deciding factor for the pro-lifer is the intrinsic value of human life, then the circumstances under which the human life was created (consensual vs. nonconsensual sex) cannot possibly have any bearing on the value of that life. If I happen to be the child of rape, does that decrease my intrinsic worth as a human being? Of course not. Does it mean that if someone murders me it's not "really" murder? Of course not. My life has exactly the same value as that of the child of consensual sex. From the pro-life perspective, how can it be any different if I am the child of rape but not yet born? Aborting me would still be murder. From the pro-life perspective, Stephanie, you seem to be arguing that abortion is murder, but murdering an unborn person is OK if the person was conceived via rape.
I personally don't agree with the basic pro-life perspective (because I don't agree with its premise that human personhood begins at conception), but I do find it coherent in its pure form. But I don't find it coherent in its "...except in cases of rape and incest" form. That form basically (excuse the analogy!) throws out the baby with the bathwater.
Second, at one time, at least, LDS theology was not "pro-life" in the classic "life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder" sense of that term. Abortion was strongly discouraged, but not because it was felt to be murder. Rather, the theology held that we did not know when the pre-mortal spirit entered the embryo (though the "best guess" was at the fetus' quickening, when the mother first feels it moving), and that if the embryo or fetus were destroyed before that time there was no murder. Abortion in such a case would be wrong because it delayed some premortal spirit its turn for mortal probation, not because it amounted to murder. IIRC, for a long time, Senator Orrin Hatch's anti-abortion stance was based on this argument rather than the "abortion is murder" argument. (He did not, however, stress the differences between his thinking and the religious right's.)
FWIW, orthodox Jews traditionally held that the soul did not enter the body until a few days after birth. To see how different ancient Jewish notions of abortion were from ours, see Numbers 5:11-31, which at the very least strongly suggests that priests, with God's active assistance, actually performed abortion rituals in the ancient Temple!
Third, re BBD's reminder that we are "commanded to replenish the Earth"--that command is not a command to keep reproducing ad infinitum. If I'm a waiter serving someone who has emptied his glass of Diet Pepsi and I'm asked to refill his glass, it doesn't mean I've been asked to keep pouring forever! The idea of "re"-filling the cup or "re"-plenishing the earth implies that there is such a condition as being "filled" or "plenished," which when achieved means you stop the act of plenishing! (Anyone want to look that word up?)
Just because pro-natalist religious dogmas (Catholic, Mormon, or whatever) have missed this point (by conveniently misinterpreting the scriptures they pretend to respect) doesn't excuse us from exercising our own judgment here. And just because a strong pro-natalist policy makes sense in one place or time does not mean it makes sense in all places or times! (One of the drawbacks of religion is that it tends to take things that are sensible at one time and place and make them into universal, timeless truths, thus ensuring that certain behaviors continue even after they no longer make sense.)
The questions we need to ask are questions like these: Even if we accept the biblical command to replenish the earth--are we done replenishing it or not? How does one know when to stop? What are the criteria we should apply here? etc. Your pronatalist churches ain't gonna touch these questions because they have much less interest in truth than in increasing their flocks.
Fourth, I agree with Stephanie that it's wrong to kill animal researchers. But the reasoning here needs to be fleshed out. It's not enough simply to say, "Human life is more valuable than animal life" and let it go at that, because the choice we face is not always the choice between killing an animal or killing a human. Often the choice is far more nuanced, something like this: Is it ethical to kill a lot of rhesus monkeys in order to maybe someday produce a drug that can ease the pain of millions of humans in a way that is less expensive than some other drug we already possess? Is it ethical to cause a lot of pain to a lot of monkeys in order to find ourselves a safe artificial sweetener? What are the criteria which can help us decide?
Not easy questions.
--David
re "wackos not reproducing"--has anyone seen Idiocracy?
--David
I think that all those nutjobs who think that having children ruins the planet should definitely be sterilized. What horrid logic.
Whatever happened to people thinking that they should have children, raise them in the way they should go, teach them honest and good things, and then those children would carry on by teaching others? And then by helping your children you have helped dozens? You can't save the planet by reducing the human race (just look at all the countries who have already figured out that overpopulation is a myth...wait, thats a post for another day) you have to save the planet by improving the quality of the human race's existence, per responsibility for actions, education in the sciences as well as fine arts, but mostly responsibility.
Whatever happened to Waste Not,Want Not? Well, I guess people like that look at children as a waste. Pure waste.
David, I agree that the "except in cases of rape and incest" is a contradiction to the pro-life argument, but I think it is along the same lines as justice vs. mercy. Justice demands certain consequences for actions, and mercy allows the Savior to make up for those actions.
Like I said, I am also pro-choice when it comes to women and their right to make reproductive choices about their own bodies (just a little different than the Pro-Choice movement - note the caps). It seems to me that the church's stand is the most fair and reasonable compromise to uphold the sanctity of life while acknowleding a woman's right to make her own decisions about when to have children. Given all the available forms of birth control, I don't see any good reason why abortion should be considered a form of birth control. Anyone who chooses to have sex while using a form of birth control knows that there is still a small chance of getting pregnant. When you make that choice to have sex, you choose to accept that risk. To then say, "Well, I didn't mean to get pregnant. The pregnancy is an accident. I don't want to be forced to carry this child" is just plain irresponsibility, IMO.
In the case of a teenage girl raped by her father, perfect justice on a Pro-Life basis would demand that she carry the baby to term. Mercy extended to the young woman who did not choose to have sex and thus should not be subject to its consequences (beyond what she already will be with emotional scars) would allow for abortion. That's my stand. Also, murder is wrong in our society but killing someone out of self-defense is excusable. Perfect justice would demand the same punishment for killing out of self-defense as it would for murder. Mercy is what excuses the self-defense killing.
Even if we accept the biblical command to replenish the earth--are we done replenishing it or not? How does one know when to stop? What are the criteria we should apply here?
Probably depends on your definition of "we". The Proclamation on the Family says that the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth "remains in force". As an individual, I choose how many children I want to have and when I should stop. That is my own reproductive choice. I don't think any society (China included) really has the right to dictate how many children a couple can have.
Your pronatalist churches ain't gonna touch these questions because they have much less interest in truth than in increasing their flocks.
What "truth" is that?
Good post. It looks like my first concern, the "crazies exist on both sides of the aisle" point, has been covered.
If those sterilized people think that children - people - are bad for the environment, what keeps them from offing themselves? :)
I know we've been over abortion a few times here, but at the risk of opening a can of worms, let me ask a question. How would a no abortion except in cases of rape/incest or danger to the life of the mother law actually work? Would the rape have to be proven in a court of law? Would we have women who want abortions crying rape in order to get them? In order to get the abortion, would the women be required to press charges against their rapists? Obviously the abortion would have to take place before the rape trial's over. What about incest? Would you have to DNA match the aborted fetus to the father? If the rapist is found innocent, do we then charge the woman with an illegal abortion - even if she sticks to her story? How severe does the threat to the life of the mother have to be? A 50% chance of death? 40%? 5%? I'm legitimately curious, not trying to bait anyone.
There are a million abortions in the United States every year. Is our legal system even capable of dealing with illegal abortion, especially given that most people agree that there are exceptions to the rule?
On another note, that story in Oregon was horrible, and everyone decried it. If euthanasia's going to be legal, it darn sure better be 100% elective and the insurance shouldn't even have the right to suggest it, lest their financial conflict of interest (death being cheaper than long-term medical care) cost people their lives. But the sad fact is that health care has huge costs. They have a 5 year-5% rule - the treatment has to exceed a 5% survival rate at 5 years - in order for the insurance to pay for it. I do not envy people who work in health insurance - they have to decide who lives and who dies every day, and everybody hates them.
Regarding the ecoterrorists, I always have a good idea yelling rude things out the window at the Covance protestors who stand outside the Chandler mall yelling about animal rights. My wife really doesn't appreciate it when I do that. But I'm equal opportunity - I yell and honk at every demonstration I see, right- or left-wing. :)
If those sterilized people think that children - people - are bad for the environment, what keeps them from offing themselves
Well, I admit I had the same thought, but it kind of hurt my whole "value of human life" argument. :)
I also had the same thought with regard to how an abortion law similar to the church's position would work. I do think crying rape would be the fall-back, and it would be a nightmare to enforce. In fact, I sincerely doubt it would ever happen. But, I am so uncomfortable with our society's acceptance of abortion. It would be one thing if abortion were legal and hardly anyone opted because everyone values life so sacredly that people really try hard not to get pregnant. Instead, abortion is so common and so accepted that it is considered a simple solution to an accidental pregnancy. Even if abortion is legal and remains that way, I wish we as a society would value life more and value abortion less. I wish we would place responsibility for a woman's right to choose on that woman when she chooses to have sex instead of treating sex so casually.
But, I am so uncomfortable with our society's acceptance of abortion. It would be one thing if abortion were legal and hardly anyone opted because everyone values life so sacredly that people really try hard not to get pregnant. Instead, abortion is so common and so accepted that it is considered a simple solution to an accidental pregnancy. Even if abortion is legal and remains that way, I wish we as a society would value life more and value abortion less. I wish we would place responsibility for a woman's right to choose on that woman when she chooses to have sex instead of treating sex so casually.
I agree with this. We need to do all we can to encourage these kinds of sentiments in our families and communities.
Stephanie, I'm always fascinated by the interplay between human freedom and divine commandment. On the one hand you write, "As an individual, I choose how many children I want to have and when I should stop. That is my own reproductive choice." On the other hand, you write that "The Proclamation on the Family says that the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth 'remains in force.'" That seems to mean that if you choose to stop after having only one child you are also choosing to disobey God. On the one hand, sure, it's your choice. On the other hand, God commands you to choose a certain way. In that sense, a choice to have zero or just one child is in the same category as a choice to commit murder. Either way you are defying your God.
You also write that you "don't think any society (China included) really has the right to dictate how many children a couple can have." I agree. But China's unique in actually dictating that sort of thing. What are your thoughts about governments that try to regulate family sizes through persuasion, subsidy, etc.? What about governments that (like ours) provide an extra income deduction for each child, thus removing a little bit of the financial disincentive against having more children? Is that OK, or is family policy simply not a legitimate government concern at all?
The libertarian-conservative in me says that the government has no more business meddling in these matters than it does telling people whom they can and cannot marry.
re Mike's question, "If those sterilized people think that children - people - are bad for the environment, what keeps them from offing themselves?" First, "those people" (always a revealing phrase!) are not saying "children/people are bad for the environment," they're saying "too many people are bad for the environment." You might not agree with that, but if so you should argue against the actual opposing position rather than a strawman.
Second, I would think there'd be a little more respect around here for people who, by undergoing sterilization, are so decisively taking responsibility for their sexual activity. People who undergo sterilization are not taking sex casually, nor are they having abortions.
--David
In that sense, a choice to have zero or just one child is in the same category as a choice to commit murder. Either way you are defying your God.
This seems kind of the same as saying "you get a speeding ticket, you commit a murder, either way you're defying the law". Some of God's commandments are codified into our laws in order to protect our rights to free agency.
Hey, I was sort of joking about the sterilized people. But if the argument is "too many people are bad for the environment", then what's the value of their own lives? You might argue that since they're actively working to save the planet, they have a net positive effect on the environment. But why can't they raise children, teaching them to hold the same worldview? In fact, wouldn't the environment be better off raising a boatload of environmentalist kids?
I can see choosing sterilization over abortions as a form of sexual responsibility, though I've never really considered it, but it doesn't seem to me that "those people" (what exactly am I revealing with this turn of phrase, by the way?) want to be kid-free for any logically consistent reason.
About the abortion thing: even though late term abortions are technically illegal (are they illegal everywhere or just in CA?) doctors will still get around the law when the woman's life is in jeopardy. For example: a woman comes in at 25 weeks pregnant and says she wants an abortion because she was raped. The healthcare people tell her 'sorry, but you're past the 23 week mark so we can't give you an abortion.' So then the woman says "I am going to kill myself then, and I have a plan." So then the healthcare people induce her to labor, but before the baby is born (since it is technically at a life-supportable age) inject potassium chloride into its heart to make sure it is born dead. Because afterall, the mom didn't want the baby and it would cost too much to sustain a 25 weeker who would most likely have developmental problems and no emotional/financial support through life anyway. And if labor wasn't induced the mom would have killed herself, so then 2 lives were lost. And life is so precious.
Don't believe me? Do some research and talk to some L&D nurses who have worked for more than 10 years.
I'm always fascinated by the interplay between human freedom and divine commandment.
I agree. It is fascinating. It started in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were commanded on the one hand to not partake of the forbidden fruit, and on the other hand to multiply and replenish the earth. They had to make a choice, and that choice is what brought accountability into the world.
D&C 58:26-28 says:
26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves.
The general commandment is to multiply and replenish the earth, but not "You must try to have as many babies as you possibly can until your body falls apart or you go insane". Church leaders counsel that under the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, we should carefully and prayerfully consider our resources and health in deciding how many children to have.
Some people (some LDS included) subscribe to the Quiverful movement that says no birth control whatsoever should be used and it should all be left up to God. I happen to disagree because that can lead to situations like Andrea Yates. And it doesn't leave room for studying it out in your mind and making an educated choice. The LDS church itself does not take a "Quiverful" position.
I don't have a problem with child tax credits. To me, it is society saying, "I recognize that it costs a lot to raise a child properly, and as a society, we are willing to relieve your family of a small bit of tax burden". Granted, that is a more liberal point of view. That's fine with me. I'm not interested in defending conservatism. I'm interested in finding reasonable solutions and protecting individual freedoms as much as possible (which, to me, seems to happen more on the right).
I always objected to euthanasia and generally looked at Dr. Kevorkian as a "bad" until I starting working as a nursing assistant and saw patients dying. It's easy to oppose assisted suicide when you're young, healthy, and death is something you imagine being far, far off in the future. When you see people literally wasting away, longing to be put out of their misery, it becomes much more real and you begin to have empathy and compassion for them. You also start to question whether you would be able to handle what they're going through, or whether you would want to do what some view as taking the easy way out. I'm generally very skeptical about assisted suicide and their are loads of potential problems and ethical dilemmas about putting it into practice. However, I am open to the possibility of it being justified in an appropriate setting because I may just find myself experiencing a long, painful, terminal illness someday. I would like to think that I will have the strength to endure to the end physically and mentally, to take whatever God throws at me until I take my last breath, but honestly I'm not 100% sure I can say that I won't want to end my life myself. I don't know my mental/emotional limits, nor my pain threshhold. I may want to go out on my own terms, and not my disease's, and may desire some help in doing so. In my line of work, we sometimes help the patient pass on, but instead of pressing a button or giving an injection, our actions are more passive: withholding food and water, medication, etc.
As far as people getting sterilized to reduce their carbon footprint, I agree with Stephanie in the sense that it tends to reduce the worth of children. To have an unwarranted abortion in the name of environmentalism is not something that I agree with. However, choosing not to have children for that reason and taking the appropriate measures to make sure unwanted pregnancies are avoided, is something I can respect.
In an ideal world, every child should be welcomed into the world and cherished. In the real world, we can't take care of the children that we have. That is one of the reasons why I, personally, am against in-vitro. I respect people's personal desires to have a biological child of their own and believe they should be free to pursue that if they wish, but I myself don't believe in it. I believe that we need to take care of the children that we have (in a worldly sense) before we bring others into the world. I realize this goes against what many Mormons believe, that our main purpose is to provide physical bodies to spirits, but I feel very strongly about it. We think so much about their spirits, that we forget that there are bodies to take care of as well.
I am also pro-life and agree with the Church's position on abortion, but I am disappointed that many Mormons (and other Christians for that matter) are unwilling to adopt the children that are born instead of aborted. So many oppose abortion and say that the child must be born, even if the mother is totally incompetent or unable to keep the child, but so few are willing to raise such a child as their own. Most of the Mormons that I know who have adopted have done so because they couldn't conceive. I wish that more would adopt as an alternative to having biological children because then more children would be taken care of. Just as for every animal you breed or buy, a shelter animal has to die, every biological child born to a Christian couple is potentially taking the place of a child that has already been born into miserable circumstances. You can perhaps compare that cutting down on one's carbon footprint, but I look at it as doing their part to make sure that no child, born or unborn, goes unwanted in this world. Being unable to conceive is generally looked at as being unfortunate. In reality, it can be a wonderful blessing.
The church's official position on assisted suicide is this:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life, and is therefore opposed to euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease. Such a deliberate act ends life immediately through, for example, so-called assisted suicide. Ending a life in such a manner is a violation of the commandments of God.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe that allowing a person to die from natural causes by removing a patient from artificial means of life support, as in the case of a long-term illness, falls within the definition of euthanasia. When dying from such an illness or an accident becomes inevitable, it should be seen as a blessing and a purposeful part of eternal existence. Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable. These judgments are best made by family members after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer.
I re-read the official position on abortion. I think it is interesting that it says the church opposes "elective abortion for personal or social convenience" and "The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct."
I also think it is interesting that "The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not taken a position regarding the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. The absence of a position should not be interpreted as support for or opposition to any other statement made by Church members, whether they are for or against embryonic stem cell research."
The case of Chantal Sebire made me think a lot because here was a woman who had terminal cancer and was in excruciating pain, yet wasn't really near death because the cancer was confined to her face (see a picture of her to get an idea of what it must have been like). I tried to imagine how she must have felt and I can only guess.
While I don't think that doctors necessarily should be at the patient's side administering fatal injections, etc, such as Dr. Kevorkian and his "death machine," it's also hard to deny a suffering human being a way of ending it, by their own choice and action, through for example a fatal overdose of barbituates, which this French woman got her hands on. It's true that we don't let our animals go through such suffering. I've had to euthanize a couple of pets over the years and it's incredibly painful, but you don't want to see your loved one go through such pain when there's no hope of getting better. With my first cat, looking back now, I should have had him put to sleep earlier because he suffered a lot towards the end. I didn't do it because I believed that since human euthanasia was wrong, so was animal euthanisia. So that's why I have immense compassion for Sebire and people like her. I simply don't know what it's like and she could have suffered like that in excruciating pain for years, without any hope of getting better.
I realize that this is a matter of faith for many, as it is for myself because my faith is really the only thing that's stopping me from supporting euthanasia completely, but not everyone believes that there's anything more after they take their last breath or that they're going to have to answer to any Supreme Being. If I had an illness like Sebire's and was an atheist, I would perhaps view Dr. Kevorkian as an angel of mercy.
Those are good points, fd.
FD - you are my favorite commentor on this site. That being said, Stephanie, I have huge issues with your post. Let me show you why (see next comment.)
Actually, Stephanie - I feel what I have to say deserves a post of it's own. Please don't hate me for it - I mean no disrespect to you.
You said:
"Barbara Wagner of Oregon was denied cancer treatment by the Oregon Health Plan (the state health program), but was offered pallative care, which includes assisted suicide. Since assisted suicide in Oregon is legal, offering assisted suicide is just one of the many "benefits" of state health care. (Well, that certainly increases my desire for a national health care plan [eyes rolling]. Incidentally, the pharmaceutical company that sells the drug stepped up and is offering a year of treatment to the woman for free - those evil, nasty, for-profit capitalists.)"
I just thought it would be appropriate to draw attention to something you fail to mention when using this example to condemn state healthcare benefits. Have you ever wondered why Barbara Wagner was denied the treatment she needed? Well, it's because the state healthcare program is operating on limited funding, and therefore has to take into consideration various factors when deciding exactly what they can cover, who is eligible, and how many people they can help. And why is it operating on limited funding? Because conservatives in Oregon's state legislature fight tooth and nail to limit the amount of funding going to such "liberal" causes as state run healthcare. If this same problem were to occur on the national level with a universal healthcare plan, the finger would most certainly be pointed at the "liberals" who created the system, but it's rather convenient to ignore the fact that limited funding necessarily leads to limited care.
it's because the state healthcare program is operating on limited funding, and therefore has to take into consideration various factors when deciding exactly what they can cover, who is eligible, and how many people they can help.
The funny thing is that this would still be the case if it were a national socialized plan. There IS such thing as a scarcity of resources - even when liberals are in charge. There has to be. You can't just keep taxing and keep taxing to cover increasing costs. That would just lead to more inflation of health care costs. So, yes, I recognize that some treatments would be denied. They have to be. Mike pointed out that someone has to make those decisions in a system like this. My point was more the part about an assisted death being an "option" in healthcare.
The following is the most sarcastic post you may have ever read in your life:
Of course we have limited resources, I mean after all we're the richest nation on the Earth (even though we are constantly surpassed in standard of living and healthcare) and our military budget is greater than all other countries combined.
I mean, how can we seriously afford universal healthcare? It's not like we can afford to stop making nuclear bombs! I mean, having enough to destroy the entire planet several times over is just not enough, and so obviously spending billions to build more is a necessity. And heaven knows we still need to be the biggest arms supplier on the planet, even if this means spending billions more to develop arms and fighter jets, only to sell them for less than cost to other nations! I mean we are constantly under threat of attack from such superpowers as Cuba! Luckily we created a stable democracy in Iraq, otherwise Saddam himself could have been leading an attack force onto the beaches of San Diego, and that with the same weapons and training we secretly supplied him with in the 80's!
I mean, having the lowest taxes in the industrialized world is such a burden! But thank heavens the little we do pay in taxes doesn't go to such ridiculous stuff as providing healthcare to the public. After all, if your poor it's your own fault! Sure, every society needs people to do the things you do, wash dishes, clean hotel rooms, build houses, and other manual labor, but that doesn't mean you should expect to have living standards as high as the rest of us. You don't deserve healthcare. Besides, all you poor people would create lines, and I can't be waiting in no line while you get medical treatment, I have money!
Thank goodness we have a moral man in the White House, so instead of helping those in need, we get to pay for things so much more important, like subsidizing corporations! Yippee!!
Yup, anon, probably one of the most "sarcastic posts ever", and also full of pretty typical liberal rhetoric.
I congratulate Anon for outlining what is the great Irony in the conservative approach - you see, though no conservative would really admit it, or even see the truth behind it, this irony is basically true. It's because of this intense irony that I became as liberal as I am - I felt the need to leave a political approach that was so intensly self serving, and go to one that, idealistically, at least, was more about helping people and society. Wow, steph - your post really engendered some sarcastic replys ;)
Post a Comment