Abortion is a huge issue in the US these days. Well, these decades, actually. Many try to simplify the issue to the point of claiming that it is about a woman's right to her body and nothing more. I find this absurd. There are many more factors to take into consideration.
Before beginning a debate on abortion, there are several things that must be clarified. I'll make the first terms. I will use "unborn child" or "-baby" to refer to the unborn at any stage in development. I do this because it's a real pain to type out "fetus or embryo or zygote or blastocyst..." when all I really want to say is that the stage doesn't matter because I'm talking about them all. I'll use specific terms if I mean to refer to only one stage. For example, if I say "embryo," I mean embryos only; I'm not talking about everything and just labeling them all embryos for convenience. Another set of terms in need of clarification is the whole "alive," "dead" and "non-living" group. Alive and dead both mean organic stuff is going on. To be considered dead something must first have been alive. I will use "non-living" only for inorganic things. I am alive. My grandfather is dead. My clipboard is non-living. Clear? I hope so.
The second is the position of the law. To my knowledge, there are no instances other than abortion and capital punishment where killing is legal. Additionally, in all other cases the law aims to protect life. I believe that the law is inconsistent to protect those who are born, and not the unborn. Keep reading.
Did you notice how I said that abortion was killing earlier? Damn straight it is. Anyone who denies that an unborn child is alive is either ignorant or stupid. This is the next thing that needs clarification. Even a zygote is alive. A zygote is a cell and therefore organic. That right there tells you that it must either be alive or dead, and if it is dead, it was once living. So no saying that an unborn child isn't alive.
Alright, so this "blob of tissue" is alive. But is it human? The answer to that can only be a "yes" from a strictly scientific perspective. DNA is what makes a human a human. It's not brain function. It's not interaction with other humans. Period. Stop saying otherwise. Any unborn child has human DNA. That makes it human.
For added "oomph," check out the law of biogenesis. That makes it quite clear that anything coming from human parents must be human. So it's human and it's organic. Where to next?
It is more than just alive and human. It is an individual human being. It's genetic code is unique, assuming it doesn't have an identical twin and isn't a clone, and this makes it an individual. It's not a part of its mother's body or other such nonsense.
So. Junior is alive, is human, and is unique. In short, he's a person. Why then is it okay to kill him? There are only four areas where the unborn differ from anyone else: their size, their level of development, their dependency and their environment. None of these differences can possibly justify killing.
Size is simply a ridiculous reason to kill. I'm shorter than my dad, but I'm no less of a person and just as deserving o fhte "right" to life. Environment is also an insufficient reason. I'm inside a house. My sister is in the car. My mom is outside. Environment doesn't work. As far as level of development goes, a four year old isn't as developed as a forty year old, but is still a human and therefore protected. And dependency is also an inadequate reason to kill. Where does one draw the line? It must be completely arbitrary. My uncle was in the hospital surviving only because of his respirator and IV for a few weeks. He's completely fine now. My sister's best friend has diabetes and depends upon her shots to keep her alive. She's still a human. There is no real difference between any of these examples and an unborn child.
Sob stories about how some poor girl got pregnant when she was 14 and had to kill her baby have no place here. Abortions for comfort and convenience make me sick. Another human's life is far more important than anyone's preferences or comfort. The only instance where I think abortion is justified is an ectopic pregnancy. There is no way to save the baby in such a situation. For any other "health risk," a C-section is by far the safer and more moral solution.
A taste of what's to come...
What should be done if all abortions were to be outlawed.
View User's Journal
Mirror's Manifesto
If you're wondering why I argue the way that I do on one of the ED forums, this may help. If you're snooping for personal tidbits, this probably will be disappointing. Check the first entry for more info! ^_^ Feel free to comment, too.
 |
mirrorimage
Community Member |
