To: Machaon who wrote (78257 ) 11/17/2000 12:32:44 AM From: Johannes Pilch Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769669 So, fine. We both agree that Partial Birth Abortion should be allowed, but limited to necessary medical procedures. Again, in cases where the child is dead or brainless (i.e. where the child is not actualizing on the human continuum), then no abortion takes place. Doctors in these cases merely remove tissue that failed to form an actualizing human. This is why abortion is a non-issue in these cases.I was afraid that conservatives wanted to start limiting many surgical procedures, especially on children. There are many radicals out there that don't believe in Pediatric surgery because it's against god's design. There are also quite a few liberals who want to limit use of surgery and medicine of the conventional kind. But I am not foolish enough to think liberals generally want to do this. Merely because some conservatives think a certain way does not mean even most of them think the same way on all issues.I agree with avoiding murder. Instead, we could just put [the deformed child] out of it's misery, and allow the soul to migrate to Heaven. Well in my opinion the child is human, and arrogating to ourselves the general right to in the typical course of existence judge the life worthiness of humans, is no basis for civilized human society.I'll bet that you don't even go to one of America's untrained, stupid physicians. (**note** this comment was provoked by my assertion that we cannot tell with certainty how long a person will live) The point concerns not the stupidity of doctors, but rather their ignorance. Surely doctors can hypothesize concerning the span of their patient’s lives, but they do not know the span. I think we should let all humans live and die, having expressed their fullest potential. It is the American thing to do. Indeed this natural law is the precise basis for our freedoms-- why Jefferson, while a slave owner, declared it self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the natural right to life…. Humans are by their very nature continually actualizing and seeking expression. To abort them, however unworthy of life we think they are, is to commit a sin against their nature, which is our own. So then when you claim we should kill a child who is projected to live only for a year, you claim we should end the child before it has consumed the time nature has given it to fully be what it can be. I think this is barbarity of gargantuan proportions. We are not gods, and are no suitable judges of who should die.We all face difficult decisions. But, we aren't robots. Humans are thinking, subjective animals. And this is precisely why we ought not trust ourselves to determine who has the right to live. It is one thing to withhold sustenance from another. In many cases we may not have a compelling duty to sustain all others. But it is quite another, most ghastly thing, to actively end innocent human lives before nature’s proper decree.Excuse me, but that is a little selfish [to consider our own souls before those of murdered children]. If I had to make a choice, I would sacrifice my soul, by allowing the baby's soul to go to Heaven before mine. It is not an either/or situation, you see. I think there is perhaps room in heaven for us all. I made my point not out of disinterest in children’s souls. I think, as you say, the children’s souls are in God’s hand once we murder their bodies, and never was there a better place for a human soul to be. My point was made because I think men who can so callously extinguish human life, who can so boldly judge the worthiness of human beings to live, are proven by their own actions to be lost souls doomed for hell.I'll bet that my statement of selflessness has many conservatives crying at their computer screens! Not me. But I have shaken my head in dismay a few times.