Good News?

                   Mexico to debate Morning-After Pill

   That one of the most Catholic nations on Earth would even consider allowing RU-486 to be dispensed is amazing. That they would sanction that dispensation in government run clinics is incredible. Personally, I find no right-to-life argument in the use of RU-486. There has to be a line somewhere to distinguish life. That line should be somewhere in the first trimester. I do not think abortion should be taken lightly, nor do I  think there are 'souls' involved. I DO believe in the sanctity of life. Wanton destruction of life is wrong. But in many cases, abortion serves to keep the mother from enduring a life that may be less were abortions illegal. To me, this is not a religious or philosophical debate. This issue is one of science and reason. My gut tells me that humans make mistakes, either out of ignorance or passion. Those humans should not be forced to accept a life long responsibility no more than a person convicted of manslaughter. We, as a society, do not sentence those so convicted to LIFE without possibility of parole. At some point in gestation, yes it is murder. But not the morning after. And besides, if there are fewer Mexican babies, there will be fewer illegal immigrants que no?

Mexico to Allow Debate on Its Decision to Make Morning-After Pill Widely Available

MEXICO CITY (AP) - Mexico agreed Monday to allow debate on its decision to make the morning-after birth control pill widely available as a basic medication at government clinics, saying "the principal actors interested" in the topic would participate.

Citing "the worries that have been generated," about the pill, a late-night, joint statement by the Interior and Health Departments hinted that officials would further analyze its wide distribution. It did not explain, however, who would participate in the debate and made no promises that the decision to make the product available at 19,000 state health facilities would be reversed.

The announcement came hours after Cardinal Norberto Rivera, the archbishop of Mexico City, said the decision to make the pill widely available should not have been made without a public debate.

"Mexico was built on dialogue, not imposition," Rivera told reporters Monday.

Women's rights activists applauded the government's decision last week to make the pill available at government hospitals and clinics within about four months.

The treatment involves a hormone compound given in two doses 12 hours apart, and can be taken days after unprotected sex. Government clinics provide medications at reduced prices for those who qualify.

...AP

Comments

[annoyinglittletwerp]

I respectfully disagree.
I am totally for "choice"-BEFORE a woman gets pregnant.
After a pregnancy occurs termination takes the life of an innocent.
Too many times abortions take place because the baby is "inconvenient" or because the little one will be disabled.
Though I was born pre-Roe V Wade-I was born mildly disabled.
I wonder how many of those like me-thanks to high tech testing in the FIRST trimester-have been snuffed out in the name of "choice".
I can handle "morning after" pills and being that I had my tubes tied 8 years ago I'm not against B.C.
RU-486 is NOT the morning after pill!
Yes accidents happen-but a human life shouldn't be snuffed out because it's MOTHER made a mistake!

While I consider abortion for ANY reason to be murder-I'm also big on states rights.
The Supremes need to send this issue back to the States-where it should have been left.
As for the Mexican govt-they've just hopped on the slippery slope.*hangs head*

[Steel Turman]

Barb ...

Now listen, the human species cannot continue to grow unbridled. That seems a reasonable statement in the context of what we call 'the western world' or 'the industrialized world'.

In the Third World, people do not go to school. They do not have any education. NONE. Sex=babies there.

If the Third World continues to procreate at the current rates ... the so called 'western world' will be overcome by illiteracy, poverty and disease in decades.

Even China recognized this. In India, female babies are tossed out with the trash.

WHY?

Because of something called the 'survival imperative'.

All organisms will conduct themselves so as to insure, survival of 'self' (the individual organism) and survival of species.

In that order.

Humans have become so dominant a life form, that they threaten even their own existence.

There are, afterall, no species above humans in the old food chain.

(heh, save for sharks ;)

And lions and tigers and bears OH MY.

If we, as a sentient species, do not take measures to curtail our propagation ... we will persish.

From disease, famine or insanity, as manifested by war.

Now I know what you're thinkin'. You're thinkin' 'Steel is a &^%$#@ MOONBAT'

Nope, I am a realist and a pragmatist.

I'm also a fatalist. I do not think humans have it in them to survive in 'geological' terms.

We will pass as surely as the dinosaurs and we will be very lucky if we, as a species, survive one tenth of their reign.

That said, I will say this, either we come to grips with some way of maintaining control over our propensity to procreate or we will cease to exist.

Yes, the mother has a choice before sex. So does the father.

I would suggest a pill that precludes procreation until such time as both are ready to commit to rearing children. For life.

What say you?

[Phoenix]

>>"Mexico was built on dialogue, not imposition," Rivera told reporters Monday.<

HUNH ? Cardinal Roberto Rivera left something out of that asinine, single-minded statement: "Prayer" That would help about as much as his ignorant beliefs.

Whew.... You guys torqued me up here. The trouble with the topic of abortion is that it too frequently falls prey to hyperbole and overwrought passion.

Barb, you state your case with great personal conviction and you make good points. And yes, you are right that the greatest travesty of abortion on demand comes for reasons other than health of the mother or from the despair of poverty: That it might come as a convenience to those who might wish for a 'perfect' child. That is too reprehensible. Overturning Roe v. Wade and giving abortion rights back to the state, however, would not eliminate abortion - as you wish. Some states would make it illegal while others would make it legal. It is a no-win situation unfortunately. Either way, the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned is unlikely as it has become an economic issue that favors keeping it in place.

Steel.... Shew! The western world will not be 'overcome' by illiteracy, poverty and disease in decades. Most third-world countries are becoming much more concerned and aware of birth control and the birthrates have slowed or dropped in most countries. It will continue to drop. It is true that that the poor among our worldwide population have more children, but that rate is dropping.

Your biological argument of survival imperative is quashed by education. It is happening. Overpopulation is an end in itself and takes care of itself. We must be very careful not to justify something just because it appears to be inevitable. Nature takes care of its home. We are mere visitors here, and nature and time are indiscriminate killers. Maybe we could say our planet has its own survival imperative.

>> I do not think humans have it in them to survive in 'geological' terms.<<

I would love to hear you explain this statement. Humans evolved because of the will to survive. Your statement makes it sound as if one day we will give up that will. It may very well be that a geological event wipes out life on the planet as we know it, but to imply humans will go lightly into that good night is foolish.

What say you?

I say that giving birth to an unwanted child is a crime.

[Steel Turman]

Hmmm ...

Humans as we know them, have been extant for about 100,000 years.

That is not even a blink in 'geologic' terms.

The dinosaurs were here for at least 100,000,000 years.

The 'western world' is being over run as I type hereon.

Europe is awash in unassimilated immigrants. The US is fast becoming so. Those immigrants drain the coffers of society and will, if left unchecked and unregulated, either suck dry the nations that allow it or change the demographics of those nations in a way that will kill them nonetheless.

The best analogy I can think of is the Huns. Their pursuit of territory and wealth was the death knell of Rome. Heh, there's another analogy, Rome was the downfall of Greece and Egypt.

You AND Barb give too much credence to 'humanity'.

We are but worms in this firmament.

[Phoenix]

>>Europe is awash in unassimilated immigrants. The US is fast becoming so. Those immigrants drain the coffers of society and will, if left unchecked and unregulated, either suck dry the nations that allow it or change the demographics of those nations in a way that will kill them nonetheless.<<

You've changed your original premise by the addition of the algebraic imperative IF/THEN. Good for you. I don't believe we will let that draining of the coffers of society take place. I have no argument that the demographics of the western world have changed dramatically, but I firmly believe our culture will prevail in the long run. The more advanced culture usually survives.

Your analogy of Rome is correct except that by the time their civiliazation met its demise, Greece and to a lesser extent, Egypt, were a part of Rome. The Roman/Greco civilization's fatal flaw was that it allowed any and all assimilation into its civilization/culture. To become 'Roman' all one had to do was declare it and to abide by its system of rule of law. As a result it imploded from within because it had spread its empire so far from its origins and it lost control. The Huns were one of many tribes that took advantage of this wonderful civilization. To think its demise brought about 1200 years of Dark Ages........ Good lesson, and it is a good reminder to look back at the lessons of history.

I don't understand your statement that Barb and I give too much credence to 'humanity'.

[annoyinglittletwerp]

I'll paraphrase Mother Theresa: It's a tragedy that any child should die so that you can live as you wish.
So it's better that a child should be murdered-yes MURDERED-rather than be "unwanted"?!!!
At least an "unwanted" child is alive and has a chance.
A dead baby is just that: a dead baby.
Your "logic" doesn't wash.
Ever.

[Phoenix]

Barb,

As I stated above, this issue is seldomly argued on 'logic'. In fact, I do not believe it can be argued on logic. It is argued on passion and belief systems. In a way, you put into words what my point is: 'A dead baby is just that: a dead baby.' An unwanted child may very well become a dead child. If it does not die by physical abuse, it may very well die of emotional abuse. That is the crime of which I speak. To me, 'killing' a child from any form of abuse is far worse than to end matters quietly before that child is born with its biological needs of love/nurture, safety, and nourishment fully and actively intact. To even think of the light of the soul in a child's eyes dim from a lack of love - well, that is a crime. Perhaps humanity's most heinous crime.... child abuse.

[annoyinglittletwerp]

I was abused-as you well know. My "abuser" worked for Child protection.
I'm still glad that I was born.

[Phoenix]

I'm glad you were born, too, Barb. You are one of the lucky survivors. Those of whom I speak are not here to say they are glad they were born.