re: #240 austin_blue

Reine:

I’ve been trying to find, over several years, if there can be some common ground between the pro-life and pro-choice contingents. Then I found this:

In the late 1967, the first heart transplant took place in South Africa. As the procedure was refined, it became apparent that it could extend human life for years if not decades. Later on, it became clear that it *could* extend life for decades.

But it begged the question, because it needed live donors: What is the definition of human death while a heart is still beating? Medical philosophers and doctors discussed the issue and came up with a workable definition- no higher cerebral function, no human life.

If this is a workable definition of human death, why can’t it be a workable definition of human life? No forebrain, no human.

AustinBlue - for me, the definition of human life is going to be defined by my faith (Catholic) as being the moment of conception. For me, there is no compromise on that.

Whether abortion is legal or not, there will be those who will seek to have that procedure. My personal preference is that they would not; but I have no control over what other people decide to do. And I prefer that they stay safe, even if they make what I think is a horrible decision, rather than have them undergo the dangers of an underground medical procedure.

So - I have decided the best I can do - is focus MY energies and support on programs, activities and actions that will help people to be able to afford to make the choice of life. And that includes, where appropriate, being witness and speaking about my own family’s experience with unintended pregnancy, and the help that was available, and the joy as well as the pain incurred.

I’ve talked about it before here and don’t care to right now. But for me, basically, there is no real “common ground”, other than I wish everyone to have safe and appropriate medical care, regardless of their personal decision.