Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Terms Toxic and Unconstitutional

In regards to the debate about the ethical use of discarded frozen embryos for stem cell research:

I find it obscene that many do not respect freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment. If one doesn’t support the First Amendment, perhaps they should move to a country that is controlled by religious zealots.

Many do not believe that a frozen embryo is “life”. It is religious faith that says life starts at conception. We don’t live in a country where religious dogma is allowed to be shoved down one’s throat.

I think all would agree that life occurs when a fetus is viable outside the womb which certainly happens at about 21 – 22 weeks gestation. In the first eight weeks before the body is formed, this is a matter of religioius faith. It should not be a matter of law unless you want to revoke the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

The only area where there should be some debate before laws are revised is the question of life between 8- 21 weeks of gestation. That is why I am pro-religion and oppose both pro-choice and pro-life groups. I believe the words pro-choice and pro-life are toxic and in opposition to our Constitution.

I Want to Live In Paradise

FROM  “YOU TUBE” – WHAT DO MUSLIM AMERICANS WANT?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbcmPe0z3Sc

Abortion – Pro Religion Viewpoint

CORRUPT OFFICIALS WIN WHEN AMERICANS FIGHT EACH OTHER –

LET’S STOP FIGHTING

      Freedom of Religion – The United States Constitutional Amendments – Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”

        I am absolutely devoted to our Constitution. As such, I cannot condone neither the Pro-Life nor the Pro-Choice organizations. I am Pro-Religion.

         I, at their birth, resuscitated and stabilized the “lightest set of triplets”, the Vincent triplets, according to the “Guiness Book of World Records” 1997 ed. Therefore, I believe I have a certain perspective that others may not.

       The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is now outdated. The trimester system no longer has any relationship to the potential for life, if one believes that life is defined as that which can be sustained outside the womb. We can now sustain the lives of most newborns at 24+ weeks gestational age, and a few at 22-23 weeks gestational age, although most are severely impaired.

       United We Stand. Divided We Fall. We are Americans, not Saudi Arabians, not Northern Irish, not Italian, not Iranians, not Pakistani, or any other nationalities where religion to some extent rules political decisions.

     We can all agree that abortion of a viable fetus after 21 weeks is vile unless the fetus is non-viable. Non-viable is a very complex topic and this cannot be discussed and decisions made in a paragraph.

       At one extreme is a fetus that is anencephalic (no skull or brain behind the face or above the spinal cord). I do not consider this life and have no difficulty with an abortion in this case. This situation is no different than brain death and I cannot understand anyone disagreeing with me here. Then there is a large grey area, where the fetus may be alive and viable for at most a few days, but cannot be saved. Perhaps, this is the only area where laws might legitimately intervene.

       In the first many weeks of a pregnancy, there is no human form, only potential life if you are pro-choice and life if you are pro-life. This is not a political question, but a religious question. No one can prove to you your faith. How can anyone justify laws that interfere with this religious question? I find protests or insistence of laws by both groups in this area disturbing and unconstitutional, just like I would find protests over the death bed of a brain dead person disturbing.

      We should be joining together spending our money more wisely to prevent unwanted pregnancies, to help those who cannot deal with pregnancy and choose to go to term to deal with their situation and become good and productive mothers, to help those that obtain abortion never need another one again.

       This is the common ground. This should be the starting point of all discussions. This is how I believe we should reframe the question.

For a different most interesting discussion of the abortion issue see:

http://littlecog.com/2008/11/15/abortion-is-wrong-but-should-be-legal/