[Text of Mr. Rehbein’s letter to the editor of the Charleston Gazette replaced with link to page with letter on the Gazette’s website. – MEB]
A few questions ran through my mind when I read this.
In Roe v. Wade, didn’t the Supreme Court rule that abortion had to do with the right to privacy of the mother? What does the right to privacy have to do with endangered animals? Also, didn’t the Supreme Court also rule that the unborn child was not a life? Am I just failing to make sense with this question and running aimlessly in circles? I would appreciate some guidance on the matter.
Now to my second pet peeve.
Why is it that the conservative christian wing of whatever in this country always totally ignores the fact that a Constitution and numerous laws and judicial rulings were put into place to run this country? Did I miss a foot note on the Constitution that says that “When in doubt, use the Bible”? It really ticks me off that these “christians” are blatantly ignorant to the fact that everyone in this country, or world for that matter, is not christian. Let’s not forget the Bhuddists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Athiests, Agnostics, and any other non-christian group that I’ve failed to mention that also make up part of our culture. A VERY LARGE PART. Maybe this is a dead end too.
I feel so lost in this world of …(fill in blank)__________.
The bald eagle would win, hands down. It’s got that wicked curved sharp beak and those talons. What’s an unborn got? A bunch of half-developed skin and bones. It can’t even breathe without outside help, let alone hold its own in a fight.
The conservative faction does NOT ignore the fact that there are governmental rules in place. Rather, they believe that some of those laws and rulings – including Roe v. Wade – are unjust and should be changed.
Objecting to these laws and precedents does not amount to ignoring the law.
Additionally, many pro-lifers do not object on Biblical grounds. The organization known as The Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, for example. Also, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL itself, became pro-life while he was still an atheist. And I, for one, was pro-life long before I developed any convictions regarding the authenticity of the Bible.
Moderator’s Note:shagadelicmysteryman, letters to the editor generally become the property of the newspaper publishing them. Please don’t reproduce entire copyrighted articles on the SDMB; just include a link to the page (as I have done for you here), with a brief quotation or a summary in your own words to give the gist of it if you like.
I always wondered how the religous, pro-life people felt about eating eggs in general. Do they look at them all as little abortions. Each one potentially a birds life?
Well, no…the eggs we get at the supermarket are unfertilized and, while having properties of a living being, aren’t an actual bird themselves. (I’ve never heard of anyone eating a fertilized egg. If they did…gross.)
Besides, there’s the primary question of whether birds or animals in general constitute “persons.” In the Judeo-Christian tradition, animals were created by God for man’s use, such that mankind could dispense with them as they wished. (More importantly, animals aren’t understood as having immortal souls, so there wouldn’t be an objectionable harm there.) So animals existed to give man companionship, or provide food or clothing.
In other words, in that tradition, animals basically have three uses: they’re cute, tasty, or warm.
Y’know, if one is to insinuate that pro-lifers are inconsistent when they eat eggs, then one must also ask why pro-choicers eat meat. After all, most pro-choicers oppose the killing of adult human beings. If eating (fertilized) eggs are comparable to conducting an abortion, then eating chicken salad is comparable to murdering an adult human being.
In other words, it’s a patently absurd comparison.
The law – and virtually every religious tradition, including Judaism and Christianity – recognize that human beings have rights which transcends those of animals. In that light, there is no inconsistency between eating eggs and opposing abortions.
Not the ones that advocate the murder of doctors who perform abortions. :rolleyes:
Yes, I know they’re extremists whose actions are deplored by many other pro-lifers. But still, their claim that they are justified in their actions because they are serving a “higher purpose” makes no sense to me. Murder is murder, whether in the first trimester, the second, or the hundred-and-fiftieth.
To the OP, the Constitution says nothing about the right to abort the unborn. Roe vs Wade was a political ruling and not a Constitutional one. It amazes me that those pro-choice people think that only the radical Christian right would appose the ending of the life of an infant for comfort or expediency. And those that compare the death penalty to abortion really need help. We do not put people on death row because someone feels “put out” by their exhistance. They are tried and convicted adults who have usually commited the worste attrocities to man. That compares nothing to the 9 months of discomfort a female might feel.
And to prove that it is a political ruling is that they defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. If it was not a political but Constitutional ruling then it would be illegal for states to stop women from aborting during the entireity of the pregnancy.
And the argument that they are not alive because they cannot survive on their own is also absurd. How would you feel if someone had the right to turn off any life support you need temporarily because of an accident even though everyone knew you would be fine after a few months. That would be murder.
Adult humans are intelligent life, or sentient life. Bald eagles are endangered life (meaning the species as a whole is threatened with extinction). Ordinarily it’s OK to kill an animal–so long as it’s not for completely frivilous reasons–because they do not display the level of sentience neccessary to qualify for the protection afforded to humans. But if a species is endangered, special circumstances apply; the death or survival of the individual could significantly affect the survival of the species.
The ‘unborn’ are neither sentient not endangered in that sense.
Now then, it’s been pointed out that newborn infants do not possess the degree of sentience that many animals do, and yet we do grant them the same legal protections we grant to adult humans. The answer to that is sometimes our principles conflict and pragmatism must take over. Our culture assigns an infant a human identity at the moment of birth. Cold, scientific reasoning may challenge the basis by which we equate an infant with an adult, but there is no compelling economic need to overturn its protectons. There is a compelling need to keep abortion legal at some point, and to keep the window of opportunity sufficiently large.
The current laws strike a pragmatic compromise between the religious, scientific, and economic principles involved.
I wasn’t suggesting that. I was merely pointing out that the aforementioned twisted logic would indict pro-lifers AND pro-choicers alike. In other words, if eating eggs is analogous to abortions, then eating meat is analogous to killing adults – and thus, all meat-eating pro-choicers would be guilty as well.
Or, to put it another way, “Pro-choicers oppose the killing of adult humans” is NOT equivalent to saying “Pro-lifers don’t oppose the killing of adult humans.” As I said in another thread, A implies B is not the same as Not B implies Not A. (This fallacy is known as affirming the consequent.)
The Constitution doesn’t say a lot of things, that’s why we have the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and to rule things Constitutional or Un-Constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that, in Roe V. Wade, that abortion had to do with the CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy of the mother. So, yes, it was a Constitutional ruling.
Please quote where I said that “only the radical Christian right would oppose the ending of the life of an infant”. What’s that? I didn’t? Well damn. If’ve you’d bother to get your head out of your pooper, you’d see that I said.
"Why is it that the conservative christian wing of whatever in this country always totally ignores the fact that a Constitution and numerous laws and judicial rulings were put into place to run this country? Did I miss a foot note on the Constitution that says that “When in doubt, use the Bible”? It really ticks me off that these “christians” are blatantly ignorant to the fact that everyone in this country, or world for that matter, is not christian. Let’s not forget the Bhuddists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Athiests, Agnostics, and any other non-christian group that I’ve failed to mention that also make up part of our culture. A VERY LARGE PART. Maybe this is a dead end too."
Not only was I refering to abortion, but other matters also, such as Prayer in school, the Ten Commandments in Govt. Buildings, etc. The point I was trying to make is that Christians aren’t the only ones living in this country, or this world. I think it’s time that they meet in the middle with some people on the issues, and actually work on improving society, rather than sitting around and telling people that they’re going to hell for believing differently. Sorry if I’ve confused you in any way.
I certainly ate many of them. I was brought up in the countryside, and people had hens and roosters in their hen-houses. I don’t think there’s a way to tell if an egg is fertilized or not just by eating it, as long as you don’t let the hen sit on it for some days.
And I believe eating duck’s eggs containing a develloped embryo is done in some place (can’t remember where). Anyway, I think anything which is even remotely edible is eaten somewhere…
