Pope to masses: death OK if its your own

[Seany-D]

www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/16/vatican.saints.ap/index.html

synopsis: Pope cononizes several folks, including a woman who died in carrying a child to term, forgoing abortion.

The unfortunate lady had a uterine tumor.

While I can understand a parent's desire to see a child born, it seems to be that abortion to save the life of a mother is justified, and it may have very well been possible to continue to procreate following tumor removal.

The message I get from Johnny is that it's OK to kill yourself as an alternative to abortion. Many abortion opponents would claim it's OK to take the life of an abortion doctor, eliminating a murderer. But, if life is sacred, why should the mother's life matter less? Why does the axed-doctor's life matter less?

Frankly, if she felt the need to carry her child to term, risking her life, I admire her strength of conviction. But don't legislate your religious convictions. Hold them sacred in your hearts, but keep them off of my head.

Sean "your divine calling and my divine calling may differ" Davis

[Valvilis]

If there's one thing I've learned in all my years in the abortion debate, it's that "pro-life" is the last thing they should be called. They aren't interested in the means, they just want the end - they want abortion to be outlawed to keep in step with their (misinterprited) religious beliefs. The more vocally "pro-life" someone is, the less they care about the life of the mother, the more they condone the killing of doctors and bombing of clinics, and statistically, the more they vote against any type of programs that help poor mothers with children - WIC, subsidized day care, and similar government programs, varied by state.

The use the argument that sounds the least like "I'm a hge fricken religious zealot and I want things my way," so "pro-life" sounds better.

[Seany-D]

Are all pro-lifers Xtian? No, I'm seriously asking. I have never seen a Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/wiccan/etc. come down hard on the pro-life side. I assume I am in error, but I find the movement overwhelmingly Xtian.

If one assumes that the Xtians are merely interpreting the Bible, then I'd like a rational explanation for why some rules can be ignored from the OT (wearing of mixed fibers, pork and crabs are bad, etc.), yet others must be strictly followed (homosexuality vis. Leviticus, thou shalt not kill, etc.)

Has the archdiocese called for banning govt. officials from the Eucharist for capital punishment?

As is the case with many polarizing issues, those on the farthest sides of the argument see things with blinders on. Pro-lifers (and if they are going to start calling folks like me anti-lifers, I'm going to start calling them pro-coat-hangers) seem to boil down to this one maxim: carry babies to tern no matter what the cost. I can respect those who value life so sacredly, but doing so at the cost of the gestational vessel (since that's what they're reducing women to being) is asinine; carrying an obviously deformed and unviable fetus to term is wasteful and meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

I'll wager that the same people who are rabidly pro-life also are the folks who want to keep Terri Schiavo alive (if you don't know what I am talking about, get out from under your rock and Google the name). But when is life not life? Somewheres upwards of 40% of healthy fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted. I refuse to cop out and believe that God does this in his "mysterious ways". Nature aborts. Some animals possess the ability to spontaneously abort, seemingly in reaction to the amount of nourishment sustainable from the environment. Why shouldn't humans do the same?
If I am in a vegetative state and only burdening society with my breathing and excreting, why shouldn't I be put to death? If I can't enjoy a cold beer or a baseball game, or simply cogitate on societal matters, what good is my life?

Furthermore, the days of eight of your ten children dying from consumption and whooping cough are over. If you like things that way, go to Zambia or some other underdeveloped country. Give up meds. Boink to your heart's content without sheathing the sword. Whoops, watch out for AIDS!

Having said that, I don't believe that abortion should be used as reteroactive birth control, particularly if protective contraceptive measures are not being used in the first place. However, this opens up another issue: the church's laughable reasoning behind contraception. Once again, if I was given the choice between having a child now, and having a child in ten years, when I will be pimpin' rich, I would wait. Furthermore, if the act of boinking without babying is bad, why does Senor Pontiff endorse the (laughable) Rythym method?

Does the Bible explicitly comdemn contraception? I don't think so ... i just remember it saying that "pumping out kids" is good.

That's enough musing for the day, I guess....

Sean "keep your religion off of my laws" Davis