Sparky's_and_Sandy's

It's been on my mind very much as of late, so I have to talk about it.

But it's an 'adult discussion', so to my little friends out there who might be reading this, talk to mom or dad and don't read the rest of this--go MSN or something...

South Dakota, seemingly in a rush to overturn Roe v. Wade, has recently passed legislation that makes 'almost' all abortions illegal. Any doctor performing abortions can be jailed for performing one. Presumably, they are doing this because the Supreme Court is leaning towards the right. We'll see about the fallout of that when it happens.

For one opinion, read Molly Ivins opinion column on CNN--South Dakota's stand

Her facetious response to the state legislation--

"I find this so profound I am considering putting Sen. Napoli in charge of all moral, ethical and medical decisions made by women. Certainly lucky for the women of South Dakota that he's there, and perhaps that's what we all need -- a man to make decisions for us in case we should decide to do something serious just for our own convenience.

. . .

In South Dakota, pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription for contraceptives should it trouble their conscience, and some groups who worked on the anti-abortion bill believe contraception also needs to be outlawed. Good plan. After that, we'll reconsider women's property rights, civil right and voting rights.

For years, the women's movement has been going around asking, "Who decides?" as though that were the issue. Well, here's the answer. Bill Napoli decides, and if you're not happy with that arrangement, well, you'd better be prepared to do something about it."

In a similar vein, there's a guy out there running his own website--Calling all Wingnuts. What he does is call all the right-wing radio shows--Bill O'Reilly, Rush... whoever, and engages them in 'debate'. As far as I'm concerned, debating personal values with persons so firmly entrenched in their own ideals is a waste of time, but all the power to you if that's your goal.

But anyway, here's an entry--

Wilkow: When in doubt, shout!

If you want to listen to the audio, go ahead, but it ends in a shouting match.

The hypothetical situation that is mentioned is thought provoking, however--

"In a nutshell… One of the bloggers at firedoglake asked a key question that should be asked of all pro-lifers that claims to believe that life begins at conception. To wit:

You find yourself in a blazing fertility clinic - the fire is ferocious. In one corner there is a two year old girl. In another, there is a petri dish with five fertilized blastula in it. You can rescue one or the other, but not both. Which do you rescue, the girl or the petri dish?"

As the host of the show rightly points out (during the shouting match, of course), this is a 'Catch-22' scenario and there is no right answer. If he chose the kid, then the fertilized eggs aren't really human. If he chose the 5 eggs, then what's he thinking not choosing the kid.

But wait! There is a right answer--the right answer for yourself.

And, for me, that's what this entire pro-choice/pro-life thing comes down to--the right answer for yourself.

If the situation was black and white--'life begins at this exact point!'--then there would be no debate. However, we haven't come to a consensus as to when 'life' actually starts. Some say it's when the sperm meets the egg. Some say 2nd trimester. Some say when the baby can survive unaided outside the womb, and some say not until the baby actually comes out of the womb all natural-like.

So there's differing opinions. And since there's differing opinions, how can I dictate to someone else what the right answer is. I know what it is for me, but what is right for me in this case might not be right for someone else.

What would I do if I'm in a blazing fertility clinic and I could only do one thing? I wouldn't hesitate to grab the 2 year old and run out.

See, that's where the host was wrong--there is a right answer--the right answer for yourself. If you have convictions, you stand up for them, no matter what the repercussions are.

Listening to a followup, we find that 'God' is with the host.

"Also in this call, you’ll hear more of what I like to call, “What we’re up against.” The very next caller was a gem… She was some old Christian lady that told Andrew that I was godless and he should expect challenges since he had God on his side…"

Well, if someone has God on their side, then they are definitely suppose to stand up for their convictions. I mean I've heard it in Christian circles basically my entire life--"What Would Jesus Do?" If you want to put aside hypothetical scenarios, there's a role-model right there. The Pharisees were always setting up 'hypothetical scenarios' for Jesus-- (Matthew 22:15-22, NIV)

"15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21 "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away."

Jesus answered. He didn't complain and shout about a 'Catch 22', or whine about no right answers--He gave an answer--His answer--what He believed was right.

At least have the courage of your convictions! Who cares what other people think! Do what's best for you!

I think, for me anyway, this is why I'm having such a difficult time with Christianity lately. I was raised in a Christian house, attended church on a regular basis, and even spent some time going to a Christian university. All that said, it still amazes me to this day when I hear and see supposed believers of God berating others. When Christians dictate to everyone else what is morally right and morally wrong, I cringe. When they pass legislation--well, that's just way over the line.

Here's a fascinating website I stumbled across whilst researching this topic--"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" and one excerpt--

"In 1973, after Roe v. Wade, abortion became legal but had to be performed in a hospital. That of course was changed later. For the first 'legal abortion day' I had scheduled five procedures. While scrubbing between cases, I was accosted by the Chief of the OB/Gyn service. He asked me, 'How many children are you going to kill today?' My response, out of anger, was a familiar vulgar retort. About three months later, this born-again Christian called me to explain that he was against abortion but his daughter was only a junior in high school and was too young to have a baby and he was also afraid that if she did have a baby she would not want to put it up for adoption. I told him he did not need to explain the situation to me. 'All I need to know', I said, 'is that SHE wants an abortion.' Two years later I performed a second abortion on her during her college break. She thanked me and pleaded, 'Please don't tell my dad, he is still anti-abortion.'" (Physician, Washington State)"

We just never know what's going to happen in our lives. Compounded with the idea that there is no definitive point in the pregnancy that we can point to and state emphatically, "There's a child", then we have no right, nor should we have a right, to tell someone else what they can or cannot do to their own bodies.

Don't start with the 'Dave believes that all abortions are on the table--what kind of person is he?!?' I didn't say that. I have a very firm belief that partial birth abortions is killing a baby, for the baby could survive well on its own that late in the pregnancy.

But at the other end of pregnancy, studies have shown that more often than naught a woman’s body may naturally flush out a fertilized egg during menstruation--that's part of a natural cycle, yet many pro-life advocates state adamantly that 'life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg!'

Getting back to Molly's opinion article, here's another bit that I found worthy of note--

"The South Dakota Legislature has made it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion under any circumstances except to save the life of the mother. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or to preserve the health of the mother. Should this strike you as hard cheese, State Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, explains how rape and incest could be exceptions under the "life" clause. Napoli believes most abortions are performed for "convenience," but he told "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" about how he thinks a "real-life example" of the exception could be invoked:

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.""

Sen Bill Napoli is already making exceptions for his 'God believing' constituents--only the 'religious' and virtuous who have been 'brutally raped' are allowed to have an abortion, and only if there could be severe emotional trauma to carrying the baby.

Well, what about a non-religious person? If that person was brutally raped, by Bill's criteria--no abortion for her.

Again, this is where the Christian hypocrisy shows quite clearly.

We all frame the issue to make our side look better--Pro-lifers ask, "Is death created when the sperm fertilizes the egg?" The question itself is biased. But again, courage of convictions--I say, "Death wasn't created". At this point, the pro-lifer wins the argument with, "Well, if death wasn't created, then the opposite must be true--life was created!"

Nope. That's wrong. We don't know when life starts. We do know that the sperm and the egg form into a cell, which begins a process which leads to a baby. When in the process actual life shows up, we don't know. This isn't 'the best sound bite wins the day'--this is real life, with real complexity. This isn't won or lost because someone has a pithy "Is death created" argument.

And if we don't know, then we shouldn't pass 'moral' legislation which denies the freedom of choice to half the population.

Furthermore, the entire focus is on the fertilized egg. If I were to frame this issue my way, I'd start talking about guys keeping their zippers zipped up. In this particular instance, it really does take two to tango. If you want abortion clinics to disappear tomorrow, you get your boys to keep their pants on. Within 9 months, no more abortions. And yet there'll be people who whine that "we can't supervise our kids all the time! We can't control every part of their lives!!" Well, if you can't stop your kids having sex, then you certainly shouldn't take away a medical procedure when they get themselves in 'an expectant way' and can't handle it.

Well, this has gone way too long and I didn't say everything I wanted to say, but there you are.