Published: Friday, Aug. 29 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
So why does anyone, especially the DN editors, care what Richard Dawkins thinks?
Why was this incident or opinion, of all the opinions across the country,
highlighted for an editorial essay?Mr. Dawkins obviously has a
different set of standards to live by than most of the readers of the DN, or
not. So why use this page to highlight his opinion rather than just ignore it
and not publicize it. How many of the readers of the DN would have even known
about his tweet had it not been highlighted in this essay?
Personally I think the point of abortion rights is that a woman gets to choose
for or against such actions herself within limits. That's his
opinion, probably wouldn't be mine carte blanche.To the point
of the article though, the voice of the other end of the slippery slope no
choice at all is in full throttle in America. Personhood amendments, and legal
regulations on providers are rampant.You find one voice on the left
and sound the alarm while casually mentioning two slopes, when in fact the right
hand slope is up, greased, fully functioning. It's like when
the media has a discussion regarding climate change with one supporter and one
nay sayer, when in fact it should be 97 supporters and one nay sayer.
Do we choose for ourselves the terms and conditions for giving life? Will we
find that it is ethical to abort female babies or male babies? Will we find
that is is ethical to abort a baby that doesn't have blue eyes, or brown or
hazel? What are the conditions that we will accept as being the
"perfect" baby?Mankind has only been given the option to
invite children into the world through the creative act. God decides whom to
send. Each person has infinite worth. Each person has a purpose and a mission.
The world needs every type of person to soften us, to teach us to care for
those who are not "perfect", to remind us that some have physical flaws
that handicap them, but that all of us have hidden flaws that handicap our
eternal progression. We need to deal with life as it is, not as we
wish it were. Babies are precious and they should all be treated as gifts from
Who the heck is Richard Dawkins?... and why does ANYBODY care what HE says?It's his opinion. Just because he thinks it... doesn't mean
we have to do it!Do we just follow Evolutionary Biologists, or other
people who tell us it's OK to abort your babies???I mean it may
make you feel more OK about your decision to hear that other people agree that
you should abort... but I doubt anybody's going to go out and get an
abortion because this guy (who evidently has some clout in some circles) said
@pragmatistferlife – “the right hand slope is up, greased, fully
functioning.”Thanks for adding some accurate perspective to a
topic that typically has none.And to ECR’s point, I think the
whole reason for printing the article (despite the faux-protestations of the 1st
two paragraphs) is to give justification for this extremism on the Right.But if we take those two paragraphs seriously (even when the author does
not) we should recognize that this issue will never go away if the extremists
remain the only voices at the table. We could end this issue (at least being a
hot button perpetual political issue) once and for all if a reasonable
compromise we’re enacted into law.How about this – pick
a time period when a fetus develops most of the characteristics of being a
person, say somewhere between 7 and 20 weeks, and make abortion illegal for any
time after that (life of mother exceptions, etc…) - prior to that it is
between the parents and their doctor.Now which side do you think
will oppose this vehemently? And so this issue will never go away until all
blastocysts are issued social security cards.
From an evolutionary biology point of view, where you are are talking about
genetic traits becoming more common in the species over time, his statement
probably makes sense. To people dealing with real life, it
doesn't.He's entitled to express his opinion. The rest of
us are entitled to ignore him.
Tyler D,A human being is teachable until he reaches teenage years,
but until he is about four, he doesn't have enough "skills" to
comprehend much. His vocabulary is too small. His frame of reference is too
limited. If we used your logic, it would be permissible to terminate life
whenever YOU have decided that that person doesn't "qualify" for
life. How about the aged? With a glut of "baby-boomers", at what age
would you give them the dreaded "pink pill" to terminate their lives,
after all, we can't have anyone around that inhibits our idea of a perfect
and pleasurable life.When a woman has consented to sex (not rape and
not incest), a pregnancy should not be terminated. I know that some would say
that when the health of the mother is in question, that abortion is allowable.
Many families have faced that possibility, including ours. We choose to NOT
abort. A innocent life must never be destroyed because we are too involved in
our own life to care about those who are the most innocent among us.
Mike, you have your opinion and you have a right to it and to express it. In
perspective however you are the right slippery slope I talked about. "God decides whom to send." I absolutely disagree with this as do
many (millions) of others. Therefore in terms of public policy my opinion and
the millions of other like me count as much as yours. Therefore in the course
of policy discussion we, as the citizens of the United States get to decide at
what point a fetus should be protected. If that has eternal consequences so be
it, I doubt it though. The fact of the matter is we have had that
discussion and it resides in Roe v Wade. 26 weeks is the standard. At the same
time there is nothing in the law that requires you or your family to abort a
fetus at any stage. So if you think it's wrong and has eternal
consequences don't. Many of us don't.Now if you can
prove that God exists and that the single agreed upon God has spoken in terms
procreation policy, I'm all ears.
@Mike Richards – “If we used your logic…”Mike, my logic was all about not going down any slippery slopes, which again
was the (disingenuous) point of the article. Going from a fetus still developing
a brain stem, limbs, organs, etc. to terminating toddlers is a place you went to
all on your own.Your point seems to suggest that we cannot draw any
lines on this issue, yet our entire legal framework is built on the fact that we
draw legal lines all the time (e.g., under 65mph legal, over 65mph illegal). So let me ask you a question – when does a soul enter a body? Does
that happen at the moment of conception or at some point in fetal
development?Also, please tell us how you would force mothers to
carry all pregnancies to term, especially early on? If they used, for example,
the morning after pill do you advocate prison terms for this offense? These questions become increasingly relevant as medical technology continues
to make birth control and early term abortions easier to obtain all the time.
Tyler,Re: "Now which side do you think will oppose this
vehemently?"... (limiting abortion to somewhere between 7 and 20
weeks)...Your question has already been answered!2013...
Texas tried to limit some abortions after 20 weeks ("20 weeks" is a more
palatable way of saying a "5 month old", just 3 months from full term).
Remember the excessive response from Planned Parenthood, Abortion
Advocates, and Democrats nationwide? It lead national news for weeks!Remember beautiful blond layer Wendy Davis?"On June 25, 2013,
Davis held an eleven-hour-long filibuster to block Senate Bill 5, a measure
which included more restrictive abortion regulations for Texas. The filibuster
played a major role in Senate Democrats' success in delaying passage of the
bill beyond the midnight deadline for the end of the legislative
session".She became a Democrat HERO for her filibuster. (note:
Republicans who filibusters are villains... Democrats who filibuster are heros)
anyway... she became an overnight sensation for her filibuster. Now she's
running for Governor of Texas. Some want her to run for PRESIDENT!There were no protests from the right.... It happened!It answers your question, "Who would oppose this vehemently"??
Mike,"Many families have faced that possibility, including ours. We
choose to NOT abort."Here's a point many on the right
ignore...the pro-choice crowd absolutely supports you in that decision. You
even referenced choice. Pro-choice advocates don't mean you SHOULD abort
when the mother's health is at risk, but that she should have the right to
do so. Abortion really boils down to the same thing all laws boil
down to: When you have two people's rights clash where granting to one
diminishes the other, there must be a compromise. Here, the baby and the mother
are those two people. Why is the mother not "innocent"? If a mother
gets pregnant, only to find out 4 weeks later that her life is at serious risk
and the baby is unlikely to survive, why should be we deny her the right to
survive? The compromise was reached in Roe v Wade where abortion
was granted up until the point it was deemed the baby was viable outside the
womb--that being the determination that it was a fully-formed human being.
Isn't it interesting that those who were allowed to live now choose to
destroy other lives that are coming to earth. Who gave them that
"right". The Constitution, if we believe the same-sex
"marriage" crowd, tells us that we are all equal and that we must be
treated equally. Surely destroying a life is not treating that person equally,
especially when that person has done nothing wrong, nothing against society,
except to accept the invitation offered to come to earth.What kind
of barbarians has society become when people think that they can kill whomever
they wish as long as they "say" that the life is inconsequential? Who
made that life inconsequential? Did our Creator, who made all things so that
life could exist, or did some of the people on this earth who have taken to
themselves the role of judge, jury and executioner?We look with
disgust at societies that destroyed those whom they thought inferior, including
the NAZIs. How will our society be judged when we are shown to have allowed
over 55,000,000 of the unborn in America to be destroyed?
Mike,You say destroy other lives, I say prevent lives from even
beginning. In other words, they are not a human being in the early stages of
pregnancy. They have to potential to become so, naturally, but that
doesn't mean they are. You are ignoring the fact that you too are making a
determination at which point you are satisfied that they are human. Many
believe using condoms to be immoral because it destroys sperm. There is some
Biblical justification for this point of view (Gen 38:9). Each use of a condom
destroys, on average, 180 million potential lives. Many believe that only to be
the seed, and it's not a human until the egg is fertilized. For me, a seed
is not a tree. A seed placed in the ground is not a tree. It's not a tree
until it sprouts into one. A fetus which lacks the possibility to live outside
the mother, regardless the intervention, is a part of the mother's body,
not an independent life.
ECR, 2 Bits, and Tyler D,People care about Dawkins because he is a
constant (shrill) voice against those who hold a religious opinion.He certainly does not represent all atheists but he certainly does speak for
some. Irrespective of that, when someone of his stature speaks something so
abhorrent, it should be noted and spoken against.
Pro Choice simply asserts that women are sovereign over their own bodies. This
has been a long time in coming. Traditionally a female goes from being her
father's property to being her husbands property. Many still think this
(this is stridently the view in Islam).So what about a situation
where sex is forced on a woman, in or out of marriage? This is rape, and in
that case a woman has a right to abort a pregnancy which results.
There is no question that Hitler would agree with Mr. Dawkins. He is putting
himself in good company.
The typical DN reader would learn an enormous amount by reading one of
Re: OHBU "Many believe using condoms to be immoral because it destroys
sperm. There is some Biblical justification for this point of view (Gen
38:9)..."In fact in Bible times was it not believed that the
entire human being was in the male seed? In that scenario the woman was
essentially just a flower pot. So spilling one's male seed on the ground
was literally taking life. We now understand that half of a new
life comes from the woman. But we are slow to understand that women have rights
equal to men. A lot of our social conflict centers on this fact.
I agree with the basic premise that Richard Dawkins' tweet was appalling. I
don't understand, however, the assertion that he's talking from the
"bottom of the slippery slope." I see no express assertion by him for or
against abortion. Certainly I see no slippery slope argument being asserted. The discussion of a slippery slope is confusing and misses the bigger
point: that what his deplorable position actually reveals, apparently
unwittingly, is a deeply troublesome aspect of current American law: that a
person could electively abort an unwanted child for essentially any reason.
Nothing in the laws prevents that—for the price of a genetic test, a
couple could take the steps he promotes.
Who had a choice? Did the 55,000,000 unborn babies who were aborted have a
choice? When did they get to speak? Who represented them?My hubby
did a little checking for me. He said that the average number of live births
per year in America, starting with 1976 and ending in 2013, was about 3,800,000.
So, 37 times 3.8 million is about 140.6 million babies born. There was one
abortion for every 2.5 live births! Then my hubby did a little more
research and found that only about 6% of pregnancies are "high risk"
where either the baby or the mother could be at risk. So for the approximately
200 million women who were pregnant during that time, only about 12 million
would be in the "high risk" category. That means that 43,000,000 babies
were aborted where there was no medical "high risk" reason to destroy
that unborn baby.Who spoke for those babies? Did they have a lawyer
represent them?Would a moral nation destroy its unborn babies?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments