A test that can detect Down’s syndrome from the blood of pregnant women, which would be the first reliable noninvasive prenatal test for the chromosomal disorder, has raised the prospect of routine screening for the condition for every expectant mother who wants it.–
The advance, however, will also create ethical dilemmas for many couples following positive tests. There are fears that the simpler procedure and more extensive screening could lead to more abortions.
How is it that persons given identical sets of facts frequently come to contrary conclusions? In recent months I have considered this notion and in some of my writings here, in a collateral way, have marked my observations. The enigma is observable in every class, rank and collection of people. I’ve seen it to hold in families, in churches, and in politics. As recently as last week, we saw a striking example in our country when our Supreme Court Justices ruled 5 to 4 on an issue. How can that be? Why is that so?
For the sake of this conversation, I want to rule out the possibility of dishonesty and “agenda,” for although I’m not quite naive enough to disallow for such happenings among us, I believe the issue I’m raising exists outside such considerations. Think about this; approximately half of Americans are Republicans; the other half Democrats. Ministers reading the same Bible as their colleagues strongly avow the use of fermented wine for communion; others believe that to be a sin. Some ministers take a literal conservative view of the Bible; others, reading the same Holy Writ plead for liberality. Children reared in the same family, same gene pool, same parental guidelines take wildly divergent paths in the world–some pressing for bigger government with more power; others wanting minimal government invasion into private lives.
Think about abortion. Given the same set of facts, honest people divide into two groups. Standing on what each proclaims as reasonable grounds, one set votes for the rights of the mother; the other for the life of the unborn.
A piece by Paul Martin Lester notes a national survey of photographers, in which a question was posed as to the ethics of a particular situation. Given the same set of facts 38 percent said the response at question was ethical; 34 percent called the action unethical.
In an article in which Ann Morning wrote concerning the definition of the term “race,” she observed that after interviewing over 40 university professors in biology and anthropology, she found their views to vary widely.
Almost 40 percent of these academics took what can be called an “essentialist” view: they described races as groups of people who share certain innate, inherited biological traits. In contrast, over 60 percent held a “constructionist” perspective: they argued that races do not correspond to patterns of human biological variation, but rather that racial groupings are “constructed” through social processes that take place in particular historical, political and economic contexts. In other words, the jury was out on the scientific nature of race.
She goes on to ask,
With a commonly-accepted set of facts, why did they arrive at different opinions about whether the groupings we call races actually exist “in nature,” independent of our study of them, or whether these groups are ones that we humans construct, guided by our cultural presuppositions, and then impose like an artificial grid on the fuzzy reality of human diversity?
What is it that causes this phenomenon? Perhaps a difference in values is the mainspring, yet that leaves unexplained that children from the same families vary distinctly in their views, and should we consider it to be the gene pool and inherent tendencies we are against the same wall. Levels of education seem not to scribe a defining line, nor do church denominations or the area of the country–with some modest exceptions.
Ideas out there? I’m interested in hearing them.
My devotional blog is here.
” Defining “a pre-viable fetus” that survived an abortion as a “person” or “child,” he argued, “would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
by Terence Jeffry
When Obama was in the Illinois Senate, the Born Alive Infants bill came up three successive years.
In 2001, three bills were proposed to help babies who survived induced labor abortions. One, like the federal Born Alive Infants bill, simply said a living “homo sapiens” wholly emerged from his mother should be treated as a “‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child’ and ‘individual.'”
On all three bills, Obama voted “present,” effectively the same as a “no.” Defining “a pre-viable fetus” that survived an abortion as a “person” or “child,” he argued, “would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
In 2002, Obama voted “no” on the bill.
More here on Townhall from which this information was derived.
Shrewd man that he is, Mr. Obama saw the trap–the truth trap–into which he would be snared should he sign the bill. For indeed if a child is a child while inside his mother, then abortion is murder.
My devotional is here.
On my devotional blog today, I posted a disturbing video of Oprah Winfrey, who is promoting an anti-Christ lineup on her program. Such ramifications are chilling.
Gratified to have developed a conservative viewpoint in nearly every area of my being, I yet remain upbeat and have far from a negative concept of life. So, in part to offset the heavy tone of my writing on God Things today, I’m happy to bring you this positive and exciting development.
TALLAHASSEE — The state House on Wednesday passed a measure that would force women wanting to have an abortion to either watch an ultrasound beforehand or sign a form saying they don’t want to.
The debate sparked bitter partisan debate, with Republicans calling it a simple issue of “informed consent” and Democrats calling it an invasion of privacy and useless political posturing.
Entire article from Palm Beach Post is here.
Abortion is such a dreadful thing. Perhaps through this measure a few–or many–innocent children may be saved from sure death. God grant it.