![Hundie Jo [Dot] Com](http://www.hundiejo.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache2/7d6a910bbe08845c0836a517a70936d5.png){kind=small}
Henry Imler April 18th, 2007
Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Abortion Procedure
The majority upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act,
whose very name can set off heated debate. The procedure addressed is
known medically as “intact dilation and evacuation” and “D and X,” for
dilation and extraction. It involves partly removing an intact fetus,
then destroying the skull to complete the abortion. Doctors and other
abortion-rights advocates who challenged the law maintained that the
procedure is often the safest because it minimizes the chances of
injury to the uterus.
Now if they would abolish the death penalty, overturn Row v Wade, and legalize euthanasia. Then we would be on our way to being actually pro-life. Oh yeah, and something about that whole warring business, I am not sure about that….
- News
- Comments(7)
This is a great day for the pro-life movement. We have Senator Sam
Brownback to thank for rejecting the Miers nomination and getting
Justice Alito on the court.
Is Henry now officially against the death penalty?
If not, I am darn close.
woo hoo!!!!!
my work is paying off!!! :)
Not going to deny that discussions with you and Kyle and Danny have moved me change my positions.
How is euthanasia morally different from abortion?
Also, was it the Declaration of Independence that declares God gave us the “right” to life or was it Scripture?
Just some questions I have been thinking over.
How are the two morally different? It boils down to who is making the
choice. The fetus has no control in the situation. It is being killed
and robbed of all possible future choices. The adult that chooses to
end its life (although there are many types of euthanasia - the biggest
being active vs passive) has control in the matter making is completely
morally different. There is also the issue of euthanasia vs. assisted
suicide.
From a legislation standpoint, I think it should be legal - your life,
your choice. From a moral standpoint, I have always maintained that it
is a different matter. I think that passive euthanasia is moral
(letting nature run its course) and that usually active euthanasia and
suicide is immoral. The key is that it should still be allowed under
our laws. —–
Oh yeah, the second part of the question. The source of all value is
from God. I am not sure about the rights part. It really depends on how
you frame the question. Within any society there is an implicit and or
explicit agreements where rights and obligations are setup. So, from
that standpoint the government documents give rise to rights within the society. It is like agreeing beforehand on what Halo game type we are going to play.
Now, I will also hold to a universal set of rights that I think stem from outworking of the values the God has set up.