George wrote, in part: "But the practical result of being required to
take into account all possible exceptional cases is that it is not
possible for a state ever to say under any circumstances that the life of
an unborn child can receive any protection if the woman bearing that
child is intent on aborting it. You may consider that good. I think it
reveals a culture which is terribly out of balance."
-----------------------------------------------
1. we are probably on the same page here.
2. I do not consider that good.
3. That our culture is terribly skewed is obvious.
We so often tar those with different opinions with pejorative labels. Two
of these (just on this issue):
"Pro abortion." Nobody is this. Has anyone ever heard a "pro-abortionist"
arguing for less birth control measures because they were reducing the
need for abortions? Of course not.
"Anti-choice." That's an unfair label. Everyone (well, maybe not Peter
Singer) agrees that "Choice" does not include infanticide.
As Gilberson says (page 5, Science & Spirit, Sept 2004), "...the debate
over abortion is really one about when, in the development of a human
life ... the rights associated with personhood emerge. ... But all agree
[(again, probably not Singer)] that once those rights emerge, they should
be protected."
jb
www.burgy.50megs.com/respect.txt (Hug an Evangelical)
________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/ month - visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!
Received on Sun Oct 10 14:27:25 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 10 2004 - 14:27:42 EDT