Sunday, November 8, 2009

David Hamilton and the confusing "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" debate

There are plenty of reasons we might well support the nomination of David Hamilton and some of these are here, including help in freeing a man from death row:

GO here for more on NOMINEES

GO here for more on NOMINEE Judge David Hamilton

At the same time, for the ongoing discussions of future nominees and legislative choices we all need to become more aware of one particular debate and seek to address the terminology and the ACTUAL practices of abortion or no:

Keep in mind that MANY progressive Christians and OTHERS with deep FAITH, including in Islam context where the sacredness of children in and out of womb are concerned prefer a stance closer to or similar to The Consistent Life Ethic:

Also keep in mind the HUGE number of babies in and out of womb who are KILLED by US bombing and the unreported (yet reported) spontaneous death and killing of the embryo in the womb of pregnant women in areas of war (which implicates US with many abortions via bombs.)

Third, there is quite a hypocritical record on "pro-abortions" and use of legislation supporting ACTUAL abortions and racist schemes during past six or so years via the so-called "pro-life" leaders of our government. All you need to do is a fairly short search for this information.

I have some personal concerns and ethics in this regard and refuse to accept the either/or that is so often clouding these issues. Time is NOW to begin clearing the clouds in this discussion either within parties or intra-party...

For all who work sometimes within an inter-faith, anti-war people of the spectrum of devoutness to religions/spiritualities , we must be more aware that there are many who may vote on this one issue alone. Therefore, we need to build in at least a third alternative. There was for a time a helpful campaign called the Just Ethic Campaign which brought to light third perspectives such as the "consistent life ethic" in constant adherence to issues of war, death penalty and abortion where pregnancy not due to rape, where issues of life-death health of mother was not involved, where there are options for the pregnant mother to make sure her baby will be safe and well-cared for, etc.

We must of course begin to question to a pro-abortion stance in every case and we must question in war calling a "pro-life" choice ACTUAL pro-life.

OF course the only topic of consideration in support or lack of it by citizens should not be only abortion issues, this has often been made the major one by many who would thwart the return to the "rule of law".

Because the appropriate discussion of so-called "pro choice/prolife" designations have YET to add concerns and lacking on BOTH sides of this debate, ie:
* US poverty-prevention,
* Lack of education of female rights as well as what's involved in cases of abortion to the suffering of the unborn,
* Sneaky attachments to votes to legislate so-called "Pro-Life" (ie, potential ruling for parents and mothers to be sent in some states to prison if even their choice is abortion in cases of rape),
* Missing: the freedom for independent choices for mature women without the horrendous baggage we've had under Bush of the most inappropriate designation of male leadership over Women's Health USA - see David Hager for one)

STILL, there has NOT been enough sensitivity to the religious, spiritual teaching across the board and there is an assumption all to often that anyone who believes in Human and Civil rights is totally accepting of the poorly named "pro-life" legislators, judges, etc. when in is at stake far much more than just these two world views.

We must begin now to help reshape this discussion before the coming elections, smaller and larger.

How would you the reader like to see this debate organized in the future? Where do you suggest readers here go for helpful information?

No comments: