Robert George Answers Doug Kmiec's Questions on Life Issues
Reader Comments
tramadol withdraw pharmacy online
FvqdyY Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
soundtracks
+1
cialis
Great topic. Now i can say thank you
tramadol 100mg sr
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.
effects of long term use tramadol
Beautiful site!
Eloquence
Thank you, Mr George, for your eloquent and reasoned discussion of the moral implications of abortion and stem cell research. It is encouraging beyond words to at last hear the intelligentsia draw a line in the sand on this issue (in addition, of course, to the inspired writings of the late JPII).
Mr Kmiec's reasoning though not morally sound (because it allows that the end of fewer disadvantaged unwed mothers justifies the means of abortion) is embraced by so many Catholics as they all too briefly consider the debate. Some search for a rationale that allows them to be in step with modernist thinking, and once they find Mr Kmiec, they stop thinking. Sadly, it is a habit that many Catholics have formed over the years in response to the Church's directive against contraception-where, once again, they prefer to deny and ignore the carefully deliberated teachings of the Church, softspoken though they are here by the American clergy.
life issues
This president is the most pro-abortion pres. in history. He supported allowing babies who survive botched abortions from being resuscitated.
Life begins at conception. Obama is a constitutional lawyer so he says. Well the Dominican Republic has passed that into law.
So, for the Supreme Court and his idea of following international law, here is a precedent that even Ginsburg should approve.
The child is dismembered and burned with saline during abortion. Just because you can't hear the scream doesn't mean pain is not felt. That is TORTURE. He state that America does not torture.
There but for the grace of God goes he.
The excepton proves the rule
The issue is one of value as Peter Singer has stated. We bomb and produce collateral deaths or on purpose caused deaths in Hiroshima and Dresden and Iraq. The rational is save our way of live and save more lives by doing so. These are exceptional circumstances. And so is being pregnant and the the eventual responsibility of raising a child. So just as the people of Hiroshima and Dresden were persons so is the beginning embyro. This is not a scientific issue; clearly it is a an early human; rather, is the way we perceive our world. And pregnancy and abortion are seen as exceptional circumstances; hence, never in our history is a mother who aborts or her husband who encourages her to do so or her family held accountable at law for any kind of felony.
What makes for an exceptional circumstances. Again, not science. IT is how we experience the world. We experience and then we rationalize. This accounts for different cultures and religions.
And a second issue, contracts are not enforceable involving promises to utilize one's organs to save another; that is if one contracts to donate one's kidney and reneges and the perspective receiver dies as a result, this is not actionable at law. This applies to pregnancy where one is utilizing one's body to sustain the life of another. An officer in the army cannot order a soldier to donate blood to save a dying comrade; of course, social opprobrium would control the donation. A doctor is not liable for failure to use a pint of his own blood to save a patient assuming no other source. I think without it being stated explicitly, this is the way many look at pregnancy. Hence, there is not the social opprobrium to abortion. At worst, seen as a necessary evil like collateral damage.
The issue comes down converting one to experience the world as you do as in religion.
Mistake
Let me correct a statement I made.
"An abortion at any point in the pregnancy is the taking of innocent human life given the position that we should not exclude any class of humans from the community deserving of protections of the law."
In fact, all abortions are the taking of innocent human life given the clear scientific fact that the embryo...fetus that exists in the mother's womb in a pregnancy is a distinct, whole human organism. We, of course, should not exclude anyone from the equal protection of the laws, but that simply has nothing to do with my description of what abortion is as a matter of science. Making abortions permissible excludes the most vulnerable and smallest members of the human community from the protection of the laws.
Mistake
Let me correct a statement I made.
"An abortion at any point in the pregnancy is the taking of innocent human life given the position that we should not exclude any class of humans from the community deserving of protections of the law."
In fact, all abortions are the taking of innocent human life given the clear scientific fact that the embryo...fetus that exists in the mother's womb in a pregnancy is a distinct, whole human organism. We, of course, should not exclude anyone from the equal protection of the laws, but that simply has nothing to do with my description of what abortion is as a matter of science. Making abortions permissible excludes the most vulnerable and smallest members of the human community from the protection of the laws.
