Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post - Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

May 23, 2005, 07:19 pm

PLEATS & PATCHES ARE NOT ALWAYS AS THEY FOLD & SEAM
- Willie the Shake (Paraphrased)

The non-sequitur, oxymoron and prevarication being the mutually supportive, symbiotic triumvirate stooges that they are. This record has encountered, been accosted by and otherwise intersected a foreboding number of ballot boxers who are tandemly 'pro nuclear power' and 'pro life'. Word is that *'anything is possible'; whereas, the above balloteering example seems consummate proof countermanding *that clliche. (Still, the Geiger counter gagging, jugglers of nuclear bon bon's and other smiling death merchants continue to draw an ominously compromising, if not vigorously approving crowd.)

CULLING THE HERD-THINK MENTALITY, continued:

(Who started the rumor, 'You can't beat the devil'? <Is peacefully resting, winking a lot, alongside Stonewall Jackson and LightHorse Harry, in Grant's tomb? Wood eye lye 2 U?>)

It's likely, with regard to this topic, that many thoughtful persons have considered the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice', cautiously misleading. Perhaps they are.

Is it unbearably moribund to pronounce the opposing elements here, pro abortion & anti abortion? In a not unpopular series of idioms, the terms 'life savers vs murderers', along with 'baby killers' vs 'SAVE THE CHILDREN!' ?

Too often there expedient, self righteous, poorly thought out judgments passed in these not uncommonly violent American ralley cries, ranging from affectionately employed, HUGGIES embracing aliases, to hateful sobriquets.

Upon scrutinization, who, after all, could be 'anti-life' (never mind the vermin, weeds and in-betweens here, is this issue not focused on human life in particular)?

In extremis the pro-abortionists are a bloc of so called baby murderers and the anti-abortionists are an opposing bloc of baby savers. It looks right on paper but very unfortunately, in the experiential field, it is altogether somenting else.

I may only hope that the Reader will reserve judgment upon me as a 'pro-choice' (pro abortion, baby killing) advocate, at least until after such Reader may honor Truly Yours with having read this missive, and given it at least more than a fleeting evaluation. Thank you. In expedient terms, Truly Yours considers himself among those who would - with a minimum of avoidable pains of all descriptions - contribute to, guard and defend that which benefits the most number of persons, for the longest period of time.

(Re: the difference between the Ideal - what a given culture holds up as it's standards of morality and behavior, and, the Idealogy - what a culture actually practices. The greater the distance/contrast between the Ideal & the Ideaology, the more lamentably avoidable - duplicitous, intrigue and double-talk generated- suffering of any such tolerance threshhold permeated society. Re: double-government; Orwell's 1984, Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD, THE MEDIA MONOPOLY, by B.H. Bagdikian, and THE 25 TOP CENSORED NEWS STORIES OF 2001.)

Not likely that any truly moralistic and thoughtful person (those ranks ar thinning rapidly?) perceives the too often ostentatious issue as being that simple. So Right vs So Wrong. Because, indeed, the issue is not - by any means - that simple. Aborting a fertilized egg any time - from conception to before the end of the first trimester - and beyond - is indeed a more or less tragic event, whether deliberately induced, or involuntarily experienced.

It seems the more affluent cultures tend to cast an unfounded, elitist-condescending, condemnative view on issues of abortion. Whereas, contingent - to abort, or not to abort - circumstances reveal that such apparently well defined decisions of forthcoming life and avoidable, premature death are not so well rectified in the light of globally impingent circumstances.

With a mortality rate applied to children under five years of age perishing at a rate of 35,000 daily... The 'pro-life' side of the issue may internally, personally, politically and/or externally proclaim that their will spares the - to be, or not to be - unborn and/or ungestated foetus/child. Whereas this otherwise meritorious intent countenances a rate of 35,000 daily- slow death - mortalities.

Those who care to, may check out the 'stats', on these losses as they add up in annual computation. Multiply that number by how many surviving people have cared for and loved and become bonded with that child, before it perishes, and therefore, how much - incalculable - suffering and heartbreak comes of that 'singular' - loss; how much nutrition that foredoomed child consumed before it perished, and how that lost nutrition, in a population controlled environment, may have been used to allow a born child to live a relatively normal, full life...

In that consideration, allow that pro abortionists are often berated as craven advocates of 'the quick fix'; whereas, in the global consideration of the above scenarios, we see in the so called 'anti-abortionist/pro-lifers' a penchant for disregarding the devastating consequences of - operative word:globally considered - 'pro-life' postures and the enormous parameters of suffering and grief that are 'traded' for 'a clear conscience'.

It is a fact that there is indeed, 'another life', within a pregnant woman, on the other hand, that life is altogether in her custody - quite literally a part of her [I Behavioral authorities agree, a born child identifies itself with - as being/does not differentiate her/his self from - its mother, for at least a year after its birth)[/i]... whether she can afford to pre-or post natally sustain it, whether it is foreordained to premature slow death, or not. Neither the life support system of mother or the life she is supporting, as a rule, is not destined to hear of (- what is otherwise, in the sprawl of middle class+ societies across the world, become the legal - PAMPERS sanctified, embraced and juggled - sanctuary: Roe vs Wade.

This record, for example, can and has argued - very effectively (so I've been assuaged by others) - for and against both sides of this often bitterly subjected , inevitably solemn issue. Not unlike the tragic consequences of intense, characteristically emotion saturated disagreement: warfare per se, there is herein, a real - mighty sobering, thought provoking - question:
...will it ever be resolved, or, is their some middle ground the opposing camps may share in relative peace and understanding?

Until further notice, the issued acrimony, shows no signs of resolution, this record may only hope that it has and will continue to contribute whatever further understanding might be imparted, indeed, on both sides of this complex, inherently incongruous astringent and melancholy issue. A helpful closing thought here, may be expressed in the respectfully offered advisory that decision making with regard to abort, or not to abort, unequivocally vary with each and every individual circumstance.

Are not circumstances a very important factor in any such considerations, per selected, individual situation. What is a reasonable and merciful decision in one case, may be an unreasonable and merciless decision in another. In the course of world events, are not decisions based on varying circumstances - for better and worse - a way of life?

In discussions such as that in this thread (from which Truly Yours has learned much), are we not obliged - per individual case - to recognize and compensate for what is all to often the irony of a seemingly wrong decision, actually being the better of the alternative, and conversely?
..........................

AND NOW THIS

So far this notebook has yet to record any bumpersticker or T-shirt reading: YOU CAN'T BE PRO-LIFE & PRO-NUCLEAR POWER AT THE SAME TIME. Whereas, ought there not be? (Andy Warhol - where are you when we need you?)
........................

(Oke. Respectfully regarding the issue of whether human life begins from the moment of conception, or at the moment of birth...
My Aunt Eleanor <and her keyboard, Matilda> says that life doesn't begin until all the dogs and cats die and the kids grow up and settle down somewhere else. )

Now. There you have it. That wasn't so challenging, was it?

Thank you for reading this missive.

Sincerely, Kent Benjamin Robertson
World's Number One Einstein Apprentice & Groupie.
Vini. Vici. Entiendo.

May 23, 2005, 07:19 pm	#344 (permalink) (top)
That RascalPuff Guest Posts: n/a	PLEATS & PATCHES ARE NOT ALWAYS AS THEY FOLD & SEAM - Willie the Shake (Paraphrased) The non-sequitur, oxymoron and prevarication being the mutually supportive, symbiotic triumvirate stooges that they are. This record has encountered, been accosted by and otherwise intersected a foreboding number of ballot boxers who are tandemly 'pro nuclear power' and 'pro life'. Word is that 'anything is possible'; whereas, the above balloteering example seems consummate proof countermanding that clliche. (Still, the Geiger counter gagging, jugglers of nuclear bon bon's and other smiling death merchants continue to draw an ominously compromising, if not vigorously approving crowd.) CULLING THE HERD-THINK MENTALITY, continued: (Who started the rumor, 'You can't beat the devil'? <Is peacefully resting, winking a lot, alongside Stonewall Jackson and LightHorse Harry, in Grant's tomb? Wood eye lye 2 U?>) It's likely, with regard to this topic, that many thoughtful persons have considered the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice', cautiously misleading. Perhaps they are. Is it unbearably moribund to pronounce the opposing elements here, pro abortion & anti abortion? In a not unpopular series of idioms, the terms 'life savers vs murderers', along with 'baby killers' vs 'SAVE THE CHILDREN!' ? Too often there expedient, self righteous, poorly thought out judgments passed in these not uncommonly violent American ralley cries, ranging from affectionately employed, HUGGIES embracing aliases, to hateful sobriquets. Upon scrutinization, who, after all, could be 'anti-life' (never mind the vermin, weeds and in-betweens here, is this issue not focused on human life in particular)? In extremis the pro-abortionists are a bloc of so called baby murderers and the anti-abortionists are an opposing bloc of baby savers. It looks right on paper but very unfortunately, in the experiential field, it is altogether somenting else. I may only hope that the Reader will reserve judgment upon me as a 'pro-choice' (pro abortion, baby killing) advocate, at least until after such Reader may honor Truly Yours with having read this missive, and given it at least more than a fleeting evaluation. Thank you. In expedient terms, Truly Yours considers himself among those who would - with a minimum of avoidable pains of all descriptions - contribute to, guard and defend that which benefits the most number of persons, for the longest period of time. (Re: the difference between the Ideal - what a given culture holds up as it's standards of morality and behavior, and, the Idealogy - what a culture actually practices. The greater the distance/contrast between the Ideal & the Ideaology, the more lamentably avoidable - duplicitous, intrigue and double-talk generated- suffering of any such tolerance threshhold permeated society. Re: double-government; Orwell's 1984, Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD, THE MEDIA MONOPOLY, by B.H. Bagdikian, and THE 25 TOP CENSORED NEWS STORIES OF 2001.) Not likely that any truly moralistic and thoughtful person (those ranks ar thinning rapidly?) perceives the too often ostentatious issue as being that simple. So Right vs So Wrong. Because, indeed, the issue is not - by any means - that simple. Aborting a fertilized egg any time - from conception to before the end of the first trimester - and beyond - is indeed a more or less tragic event, whether deliberately induced, or involuntarily experienced. It seems the more affluent cultures tend to cast an unfounded, elitist-condescending, condemnative view on issues of abortion. Whereas, contingent - to abort, or not to abort - circumstances reveal that such apparently well defined decisions of forthcoming life and avoidable, premature death are not so well rectified in the light of globally impingent circumstances. With a mortality rate applied to children under five years of age perishing at a rate of 35,000 daily... The 'pro-life' side of the issue may internally, personally, politically and/or externally proclaim that their will spares the - to be, or not to be - unborn and/or ungestated foetus/child. Whereas this otherwise meritorious intent countenances a rate of 35,000 daily- slow death - mortalities. Those who care to, may check out the 'stats', on these losses as they add up in annual computation. Multiply that number by how many surviving people have cared for and loved and become bonded with that child, before it perishes, and therefore, how much - incalculable - suffering and heartbreak comes of that 'singular' - loss; how much nutrition that foredoomed child consumed before it perished, and how that lost nutrition, in a population controlled environment, may have been used to allow a born child to live a relatively normal, full life... In that consideration, allow that pro abortionists are often berated as craven advocates of 'the quick fix'; whereas, in the global consideration of the above scenarios, we see in the so called 'anti-abortionist/pro-lifers' a penchant for disregarding the devastating consequences of - operative word:globally considered - 'pro-life' postures and the enormous parameters of suffering and grief that are 'traded' for 'a clear conscience'. It is a fact that there is indeed, 'another life', within a pregnant woman, on the other hand, that life is altogether in her custody - quite literally a part of her [I Behavioral authorities agree, a born child identifies itself with - as being/does not differentiate her/his self from - its mother, for at least a year after its birth)[/i]... whether she can afford to pre-or post natally sustain it, whether it is foreordained to premature slow death, or not. Neither the life support system of mother or the life she is supporting, as a rule, is not destined to hear of (- what is otherwise, in the sprawl of middle class+ societies across the world, become the legal - PAMPERS sanctified, embraced and juggled - sanctuary: Roe vs Wade. This record, for example, can and has argued - very effectively (so I've been assuaged by others) - for and against both sides of this often bitterly subjected , inevitably solemn issue. Not unlike the tragic consequences of intense, characteristically emotion saturated disagreement: warfare per se, there is herein, a real - mighty sobering, thought provoking - question: ...will it ever be resolved, or, is their some middle ground the opposing camps may share in relative peace and understanding? Until further notice, the issued acrimony, shows no signs of resolution, this record may only hope that it has and will continue to contribute whatever further understanding might be imparted, indeed, on both sides of this complex, inherently incongruous astringent and melancholy issue. A helpful closing thought here, may be expressed in the respectfully offered advisory that decision making with regard to abort, or not to abort, unequivocally vary with each and every individual circumstance. Are not circumstances a very important factor in any such considerations, per selected, individual situation. What is a reasonable and merciful decision in one case, may be an unreasonable and merciless decision in another. In the course of world events, are not decisions based on varying circumstances - for better and worse - a way of life? In discussions such as that in this thread (from which Truly Yours has learned much), are we not obliged - per individual case - to recognize and compensate for what is all to often the irony of a seemingly wrong decision, actually being the better of the alternative, and conversely? .......................... AND NOW THIS So far this notebook has yet to record any bumpersticker or T-shirt reading: YOU CAN'T BE PRO-LIFE & PRO-NUCLEAR POWER AT THE SAME TIME. Whereas, ought there not be? (Andy Warhol - where are you when we need you?) ........................ (Oke. Respectfully regarding the issue of whether human life begins from the moment of conception, or at the moment of birth... My Aunt Eleanor <and her keyboard, Matilda> says that life doesn't begin until all the dogs and cats die and the kids grow up and settle down somewhere else. ) Now. There you have it. That wasn't so challenging, was it? Thank you for reading this missive. Sincerely, Kent Benjamin Robertson World's Number One Einstein Apprentice & Groupie. Vini. Vici. Entiendo.