Why we need a national religious debate about abortion

GET-OUT-NOW DICTATOR "Bibi" & Crony's!

"D E A T H -- to -- L I K U D - P A R T Y too!"

Hear O'Israel, of the "3rd-TEMPLE" & Neighbors.

RISE-UP! RISE-UP O' S A B R A i t e Nation,

Shout, "GET-OUT GET-OUT NOW" Forever-Out!"

O' Evil Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu & Criminals!

"D E A T H -- to -- L I K U D - P A R T Y NOW!"

D O W N -- With -- L I K U D - P A R T Y NOW!
___________________________________________

V░O░T░E Smart: ░T░Z░i░P░I░░L░i░V░N░I░

the K░A░D░I░M░A░ Party FOREVER-SALAM!
___________________________________________

"Think Globally 1st, Then Act Locally 2nd"
.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzipi_Livni
.

Obviously, a perfect birth control barrier system does not exist. Time to develop one!

In the meantime, monomasturbation or mutual masturbation are highly recommended for heterosexuals who need a contraceptive.

Abstinence is another best-solution but obviously the sex drive typically vitiates this option although being biological would it not be able to develop a drug to temporarily eliminate said drive? Planned Parenthood should make the development of such a drug a high priority.

Ritaj2: Interesting post. Something to research. Also something to rip into little pieces and scatter to the four winds.

I understand this as a "best effort" at attempting to create some basic code of global morality and/or ethics. However, before it even began it seems it is doomed, not from the standpoint of it possibly being implemented into international law (if it or parts of it aren't already) but in its vain attempt to present itself as something absolute and inviolable.

If it indeed remains the case that this mighty creedo so condescendingly decided that "unborn life" and the rights THEY afford to it trump so many others, that goes to show this probably wasn't a true philosophical discussion, just morality by majority decision via survey.

This deep human desire to seek the absolute in an existence that is a quiet and slow moving storm at best is as understandable as breathing. However, the only true thing about a half-truth masquerading as Truth is that some day, some way, eventually, the veil will be gone.

The real question is do you have the will to look behind it? Or will you simply start creating a stronger barrier?

The answer is: Neither. I'll simply look away, toward everyone and everything else. That is the best barrier of all.

And what better way to ignore Truth and yet delude yourself into thinking you found it than creating some Universal Moral Code that is in reality so flimsy that some dumb guy on a blog could see "Oh! That's funny! You built a skyscraper on sand! HAHAHAHA!"

So why do the epidemics of abortion and STDs continue:

From the Guttmacher Institute:

FIRST-YEAR CON-TRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES

Percentage of women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy

Method Typical
Pill (combined) 8.7
Tubal sterilization 0.7
Male condom 17.4
Vasectomy 0.2

Periodic abstinence 25.3
Calendar 9.0
Ovulation Method 3.0
Sympto-thermal 2.0
Post-ovulation 1.0
No method 85.0"

(Abstinence) 0
(Masturbation) 0

The failure of the Pill as noted above results in one million unplanned pregnancies every year because women basically fail to take it once a day as prescribed. Is there a literacy problem that Planned Parenthood failed to recognize?

The failure of the male condom results in another one million unplanned pregnancies every year basically because many men, as per Guttmacher, fail to use them even though they have them in their pockets or billfolds.

Then there are these additional facts:
from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

and

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/20/yes-oral-sex-is-sex-and-it-can-boost-cancer-risk/?npt=NP1

"Yes, oral sex is sex, and it can boost cancer risk-

Here's a crucial message for teens: Oral sex carries many of the same risks as vaginal sex, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of oral cancers in America in people under age 50.

"Adolescents don’t think oral sex is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 'sex.'"

Obviously, Planned Parenthood, sexually active couples, parents and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.

LET'S TALK ABOUT SEX:

Is Not, the Statement(s);

"LIFE (officially) BEGINS AT CONCEPTION"

or

"life officially begins at birth"

is something that Every Person (Educated or Not)Innately//Naturally already Knew/Knows?

-
SEX IS NOT LOVE. Not Cooochypoochi! LIFE = LOVE!

Next best thing to "MC2=E"! Aye?

A national religious debate assumes that religion is relevant to all citizens, which is a fallacy. Why would a secular humanist agree to a debate within the restriction of a belief system which he rejects? The religious can debate this issue within their own communities. One has a choice whether or not to have an abortion, you know, pro-choice. If individuals’ belief systems oppose abortion then if true to their beliefs they would choose not to have this procedure. It is very simple: if you think it is wrong, then you don’t have to do it. The problem is that the religious that are opposed to abortion want to deny it as an option to those who don’t oppose its use, i.e., whether abortion is right or wrong depends on particular circumstances not an absolute moral code. The problem seems to be that there are many who are religious that support pro-choice. They are the ones that the pro-life group wants to engage in debate. Fine, keep it within the confines of your churches. If you bring the debate into the public arena, then you need to couch your brief in other than religious terms; it is really illogical to bring God and His proscriptions into a debate with those who don’t believe in Him.

For starters, abortion is not a "religious" issue.

Second, using Roe v. Wade in support of an argument is similarly incorrect. Given what we now know through science & technology, one could argue that the almost 40-year precedent is in dire need of updating.

Finally, the "issue", in and of itself, is simple and straightforward. Take responsibility and accountability for your actions, or don't. That is the Choice. It really isn't that complicated.

Don't want children? Don't have sex. Or have a medical procedure which nullifies the ability to have children. If you just can't live without having sex, then accept the responsibility that, even with protection, there is a chance you could become a parent.

Rocket science? Of course not.

Difficult? Probably. But the hard makes it good.

Don't move until you see it.

sterilization, condoms, birth control for everyone. heavily strongly encouraged, advertised, and extreemly easy access to very readily available sterilization, condoms, and birth control. No age limits, No prescriptions, No $, no insurance, required to obtain and receive sterilization, condoms, birth control. condoms and birthcontrol given away at every store, mc donalds, walmart,grocery store, gas station. put sterilization procedure room in walmart. sterilization strongly encouraged, if they want a child later, there will most likley be Many children in DESPERATE need of a caretaker. sterilization is less painful than an abortion. sterilization combined with condom is recomeneded. even if you dont plan on haveing sex, always carring a condom is strongly recomended. even if you dont plan on haveing sex, sterlization is recomeneded. overpopulation is a serious problem, people rather prevent the pregnacy than get an abortion. fertility inducting treatments and wanting to get pregnate is discouraged. millions of children are suffering and dieing because people are ignoreing them. Instead of getting pregnate and makeing a new thing to care for, care for the people that desperatly need care now.

The Universal Declaration was founded on principles shared among men of good will and intended as a permanent statement of human rights.

A UNESCO group of philosophers and religous leaders representing all major philosophies and creeds were consulted about the practical possibility of drafting a statement of universal principles. They were justifiably optimistic. After a global questionnaire and survey of eminent representatives of all the major philosophies and creeds, they concluded that there are indeed a few basic practical concepts of human rights which are so widely shared that they “may be viewed as implicit in man’s nature as a member of society”. Jacques Maritain, an eminent French philosopher deeply involved in the discussions and drafting, described this fortuitous human commonality as:

"…basic principles of action implicitly recognized by the consciousness of free peoples, this happens to constitute grosso modo a sort of common residue, a sort of unwritten common law, at the point of convergence of extremely different theoretical ideologies and spiritual traditions. "

The international community, including the US delegation, while drafting the 'right to life' Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights faced the question of human rights for the unborn child and answered it unequivocally.

For all practical legal purposes, they recognized that a new life has begun when a woman is confirmed to be pregnant. In Article 6(5), it was agreed that from the State's first knowledge of the pregnancy, there is a State responsibility to protect the innocent unborn child from harm, even in circumstances where the mother's right to life had been forfeited for having committed a crime punishable by death.

The drafting records attest that "the principal reason" for providing that the death sentence should not be carried out on pregnant women was "to save the life of an innocent unborn child; that protection should be extended to all unborn children."

We do not need a religious debate about abortion. We don't need a religious debate about anything. The real conversation we need to be having is why, despite separation of church and state, people think public policy should be shaped by religious views. A moral debate, fine. Back up the views with real, verifiable data and you will have a valid argument. In this debate, one's religion should not be tiptoed around and especially not respected. Bringing up religion in this context should be disallowed, and those seeking to do so should be ignored.

We *do not* need a religious debate on abortion. Given the numerous faiths and denominations, such a debate only serves to preserve the status quo. It only serves to preserve the mistaken idea that this is a religious issue - and to muddy the waters..

The right to life is a human and civil rights issue, and we must use verifiable evidence, not religious beliefs, to properly debate this issue.

It may be that faiths take a position on either side of the fence, and that's fine in terms of why people may be involved in the issue, but that does not make it a religious issue.

Hi Jill,

This is a very thoughtful column that seems very reasonable. And you are right in a couple of areas especially in the idea that we are talking past each other.

Nevertheless, I remain somewhat confused by the pro-life position. Typically, pro-life seems to me pro-fetal life since by and large, the biggest advocates of pro-life are also the places where the death penalty is used the most.

Also, people advocating a pro-life position also seem to be the very same people advocating individualism and lessened government involvement. Yet that's what they seem to be asking for -- the government to tell women what to do with their body.

The position that Judaism takes regarding when life begins, makes a lot of sense to me.

Unfortunately, this would very quickly run into the difference between faiths that hold their doctrines are intended to be binding on the whole world, whether a practitioner of their system or not (Catholicism, Islam, Fundamentalist Christianity) and the traditions like Judaism, Hindu and liberal Protestant that hold their beliefs to be one system among many.

In fact, these do largely line up with their positions on abortion. I suppose there's probably a connection there, between the traditions that hold all sex is supposed to be marital and procreative, and those that respect the right of an individual to practice a different sexual ethic.