A Different Perspective on Abortion
Is ending abortion altogether a practical or even desirable goal to achieve in America and why do you think so?
Whether ending abortion is 'practical' or 'pragmatic' is not the issue, and whether or not it is desirable for most people also matters not at all. The fact is that by allowing abortion, the government fails in its primary job (both in terms of the Christian faith and the ideals of liberty), to protect the lives and property of its citizens (or to prosecute such harm after the fact).
Abortions belong in back alleys. They cheapen people's view of life (euthanasia follows on the heels of abortion) and hence affect the liberty of all, in addition to being an affront against God Himself. All the propaganda today which attempts to sentimentalize women killing their own children should frighten any student of history, because calling those who are unwanted less than human (as is done by using the term fetus) is the precursor to systematic destruction of whomever is 'in the way' at any given time.
The fact that over one million women hire out the murder of their own children is not a neutral issue, despite all the talk that they are just 'doing what they want with their own bodies'. Any physician will tell you that the unborn child is not part of the woman's body. It has totally different DNA and is, half the time, a different gender. It may be true to call the unborn child a parasite of sorts, but no more so than a newborn baby, and only slightly more so than a two year old. Of course, there are people today who advocate killing of born children up to a certain age, although most Americans are hypocritical enough to be horrified when a girl gives birth and then tosses her baby in the dumpster.
So, although I think 'practical' and 'desirable' are far too weak as terms for describing the importance of stopping abortion, I would say that in both the temporal realm of political liberty and the eternal realm of morality, it is both those things.
Samantha
posted by Craig R. Harmon at 8:44 PM
7 Comments:
This post is sure to be controversial. Remember the rules against profanity and personal attacks apply to comments as well as to posts. Offenders will be edited or removed at my discression.
BRAVO, Samantha! You nailed it!
(Sorry for posting anonymously, Blogger login flakes out from within Blog Explosion.)
Beth
"This argument is faulty since a featus is not a fully functioning human..."
A parapalegic is not a fully functioning human. This does not limit his or her rights under the constitution.
"...it is a potential human."
That depends upon whom you ask. Any geneticist, supplied with genetic matterial from a blastula, could tell, without knowledge of the material's source, with 100% certainty that the supplier of said material is, or is not human. In his realm of science, there is nothing potential about it.
Any biologist, if he or she could examine that same blastula without harming it, would observe that cells are deriving nutrients from it's environment and eliminating waste products. He or she would observe that the cells are growing, dividing, eventually, differentiating. Said biologist would say, with 100% certainty, that said blastula is alive.
With 100% certainty, and without reference to faith of any sort, it is demonstrable that it is a living human being. No, at this stage of development, it has no brain to emit measurable waves but it soon will. It has no heartbeat to which to listen. It has no lungs with which to draw oxygen but it is utilizing oxygen.
If we rely upon the "fully functioning" argument, that leaves a whole lot of this-side-of-the-birth-canal individuals lacking basic human rights. Are you sure you want to go there?
"That the life of the featus is more important than the life of the mother."
Not more important, but wherein less important? It is one of the principle functions of living things, generally, to procreate, to further the species. A fetus is the natural result of that imperative.
Mike, as an atheist, believes that we should not impose morality on others and fails to realize that any law made by any gov't, is a moral statement. It is declaring some things to be wrong and other things to be right. This is inescapable. The idea that there is no such thing as an established religion wherever a society functions is a popular fiction that many people believe. All societies, even officially atheistic ones, have declared some things to be moral and permissible, or immoral and not permissible. To do this they must reference an ethical standard that exists outside of themselves.
I am puzzled as to where Mike thinks he derives his ethical judgements from if there is no God. Mike should just admit that it is his mere *preference* that we not have wars or use what he has determined to be a de-humanizing term instead of talking about these things as if they were objectionable on the grounds of violating some standard to which he refers. If there is no standard, then Samantha's position is equally as valid as his. It is merely a question of the predominant preference that governs society in that case. He should therefore cease to designate things as being wrong or right or else admit that he is not neutral and is trying to impose his view of morality on Samantha and others as much as they are trying to do so with him.
At this point, I am officially donning my moderator's hat.
We are moving off topic in some of the comments.
"I am puzzled as to where Mike thinks he derives his ethical judgements from if there is no God."
Where Mike thinks he derives his ethical judgement is Mike's business, and no one elses. It is not open for speculation here.
"The idea that there is no such thing as an established religion wherever a society functions is a popular fiction"
It may be a popular fiction, but it is a fiction for another discussion.
"He should therefore cease to designate things as being wrong or right or else admit that he is not neutral and is trying to impose his view of morality on Samantha and others as much as they are trying to do so with him."
We are discussing a question that is fraught with ethical problems; everyone on this board has declared some things right and other things wrong. The point is to defend one's position with reasoned argument.
We are venturing too close to personal attack here.
It stops here.
I mean it.
To Mike:
"That a grouping of cells can clearly be determined to be from a human (in fact from a specific human) makes it no more human than an acorn is a tree."
Your fetus-human v. acorn-tree assumes that only the fully formed qualifies as a tree. To the contrary, it is a tree before a tree looks like a fully developed tree. Likewise a blastula--prior even to a fetus, and before differentiation of cells--is simply a person before he, or she looks like a person. It is simply the first stage in developement.
The blastula is more than cells from a human; they are an individual, distinct from both of his/her--it has gender even before developing the acoutrements of gender--parents. They are growing and developing in ways that your wisdom teeth never were or ever would.
"So where is the line between knee pain and complete irreversible brain damage?"
Clearly drawn, I hope, for both our sakes. However the sad case of brain death bears no relation to a blastula. The brain dead are brain dead and will never, no matter how long kept on life support, be anything other than brain dead. The blastula is a living, growing, developing, genetically distinct individual who, within weeks will be emitting brain-waves, whose heart will be beating blood--possibly of a different type from that of his mother's--in it's chest. The question of when to pull the plug on one in a permanantly vegetative state is definitely a possible for a future discussion here, though.
"Why should humans be forced to succumb to the will of nature?"
It shouldn't, necessarely. We humans, whether by design of God or forces of nature, are capable of moral reflection that places us, to a certain extent, above other creatures. Wolves mate for procreation only; humans exhibit all the wackiness that is love. We make plans, often contrary to nature's imparatives. I am not an anti-abortion absolutist.
However this misses my point. My statements regarding nature were in support of a specific assertion, question really, "...wherein [should a fetus be considered of] less [value than the mother]?"
It seems to be a question yet in search of an answer.
Samantha said: "The fact is that by allowing abortion, the government fails inits primary job (both in terms of the Christian faith and the ideals of liberty), to protect the lives and property of its citizens (or to prosecute such harm after the fact)."
by using this argument, the government could then say, "if the mother is in danger of losing her life or seriously risking her health, the state has the right to *force* her to have an abortion." This too is the protection of human life, just from the other side. This is something government should stay out of and leave it to the woman, her family, doctor and religious advisor to decide.
Post a Comment
<< Home