As a former infant I oppose infantacide
I've been distracted, I freely admit that. I'm supposed to be writting a post on time, evolution, and creation. I'm also in the middle of a stalled response about the flood to a friend *but i loaned him books so I probably can put that off a bit* Anyway, I've just been distracted on other projects. I'm not abandoning my debates, but every time I want to right on this blog I feel like I shouldn't until I get the debate done. So I'm just going to ignore it for now and come back to it when the urge hits. Right now I'm very busy with a new creative project, other worlds and all, and will be writing on that soon. Right now I just have a quick post about the situation in SD. Its shorter and a bit chopier than my normal work because I had submitted it to the Oregonian after their article on the new law. As expected they didn't print it. Since the Oregonian (also known as the Horrorgonian, Whoreagonian, or just the Liespaper by various members of my family) leans so far to the left as to make Gore, Kerry, and the Clintons seem midline I hardly expected them to, I'm pretty sure its against their bylaws to print a conservative letter that is backed by more than the writers emotions. Pointing out evidence, science, history, ect that suports a 'conservative' viewpoint is a sure way of making sure they never print it. Still, one has to try. This is hardly my first attempt at getting them to print something. Anyway, I saved it, so, here it is. My response to all the bad publicity against South Dakota.
Calling abortion a 'reproductive right' is incorrect. The choice to reproduce, like all choices, happens before not after. At conception reproduction has already happened. A person can choose when, where, with whom, protection, and version of sex they have. Once sex has happened the legitimate choices have been made. One reason rape and incest are heinous are they takes away that choice. Our justice system shouldn’t punish innocent bystanders for the crime of another. The mother of a child by rape or incest still has a choice, keeping or adopting. She has no more right to kill the child than the police do to charge it as an accomplice. Biologically and scientifically speaking life begins at conception. A woman is then pregnant and a mother; abortion only makes her the mother of a dead child. Killing a person is illegal except in self-defense. Unless the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, like ectopic pregnancies, there should be no legal reason to kill a human because of where it resides. Abortion isn’t a privacy right, it’s infanticide. If the pro-abortionists wants to push for legalized infanticide instead of hiding behind the lie of ‘reproductive rights’ then let them. Then they’ll at least have honesty to stand on. Roe v Wade was passed given insufficient scientific evidence and rhetoric that has been disproven. Our legal system should follow what is scientifically true: life starts at conception.
Calling abortion a 'reproductive right' is incorrect. The choice to reproduce, like all choices, happens before not after. At conception reproduction has already happened. A person can choose when, where, with whom, protection, and version of sex they have. Once sex has happened the legitimate choices have been made. One reason rape and incest are heinous are they takes away that choice. Our justice system shouldn’t punish innocent bystanders for the crime of another. The mother of a child by rape or incest still has a choice, keeping or adopting. She has no more right to kill the child than the police do to charge it as an accomplice. Biologically and scientifically speaking life begins at conception. A woman is then pregnant and a mother; abortion only makes her the mother of a dead child. Killing a person is illegal except in self-defense. Unless the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, like ectopic pregnancies, there should be no legal reason to kill a human because of where it resides. Abortion isn’t a privacy right, it’s infanticide. If the pro-abortionists wants to push for legalized infanticide instead of hiding behind the lie of ‘reproductive rights’ then let them. Then they’ll at least have honesty to stand on. Roe v Wade was passed given insufficient scientific evidence and rhetoric that has been disproven. Our legal system should follow what is scientifically true: life starts at conception.
posted by Jespren at 11:36 AM
4 Comments:
This is a list of comments/responses that happened off this site but I thought someone reading this might be interested in it.
Brad:So should a woman who miscarries because her poverty didn't allow her to properly care for her baby in utero be charged with felony childslaughter?
Jespren:if you are talking about someone who does drugs while pregnant i think they should be charged with child endangerment or abuse. If you are talking about someone who happens to develope preclampsia because she didn't realize and couldn't afford to go to the doctor 'just because' it is as tragic as children starving on the street or the child who dies from pertussius (sp?) because they can't afford vacinations, but providing the best as you can for a child and falling short due to poverty is not even remotely related to someone killing their child. Someone killing their toddler because they don't think they can feed it isn't legal, and shouldn't be.
Brad:according to the words of your statement, once conception occurs, the 'child' is alive, and thus the responsibility of the parent. Suppose your drug user kills her child, but wasn't even aware she was pregnant? Is she responsible? I guess I just have a little problem with setting the time of conception as the ultimate time of life.. I am more inclined to think of the point where if the child was removed from the womb for whatever reason, it could continue to live (ie VIABLE life) otherwise, one could make a case against contraception, I mean, those lil spermies and eggies have to have some kind of 'life' in them to be able to become children right?
Jespren:To have a responsibility one must be aware of the responsibility. If a woman does not know she is pregnant she can not be expected to act in a way that would benefit or endanger the life of her child. Just like an adoptive parent could not be held responsible for failure to treat a medical condition they did not know exist. But if someone is having an abortion by definition they not only know they are pregnant but know they have to kill 'something' to make them not pregnant. Sperm and egg are alive the same way your liver is alive, its part of what makes up YOU, its your body and can not be separated from your life. (unless its grafted into someone else in the form of a transplant) The moment the sperm and egg unite, however, a separate human being is created. It is unique from every other human, including the mother. Its sex, hair color, eye color, etc are fixed and able to be known. It protects itself from the mother's immune system and for several days floats freely in the mothers system, completely separate, if internal, from her. Then it implants and starts the phase of its life where it feeds directly from the mother, which takes a little under 9 months. Biologically speaking its a fully living human being. now, if you want to argue with science, that's one thing, if you want to argue that the life is insigificant in comparrison to the mothers until it's outside the womb, that's another thing. And more or less the point of my post. If you want to argue that infantacide is okay in certian circumstances, or up until a certian age *30 days after birth is being proprosed by a society in England and some other parts of europe* at least then you are being honest and in agreeance with the truth of the matter. You're morals might be questionable to some groups but, regardless of whether or not i believe some morals to be ultimately right and some to be wrong, in this country the morals of the majority rule the judiciary system by inacting laws. polls have found that the majority of americans reject abortion on demand. If american's were fully conscious of exactly what abortion is, a guesome means of death to a living human that is frequently very painful, possibly survivable, cause a host of painful, damaging, and even deadly side effects to the mother and possible future children, found to be 3 times more deadly than childbirth to the mother, and cause the mother to be 7 times more likely to commit suicide, then I think most american's would vote against it except in the most extreme cases. If you say life doesn't matter until its 'viable' you are falling for a common deception. Mainly, what the term 'viable' means. If viable means they don't have to count on someone else for oxegen, well many premies need oxegen or even to be intubated for the first part of their life, should they not have protection under the law? should the mother still have a right to kill them at will? What about if viable means the don't have to rely on someone else to circulate blood through their bodies? the heart starts beating before a lot of women even realize they are pregnant and is technically capable of circulating blood even if under normal circumstance the woman's body helps until birth. If viable when they can intake food and digest it by themselves? Well, some premies can't do so and must be fed intravenously to begin with, should their life still depend upon the whim of the mother, or parents? If viable is able to just sit there and survive, well, that doesn't happen until a child is able to fend for themselves, usually considered to be about age 3-5, so can toddlers be killed at the whim of their parents? If viable is the date after which a baby can be kept alive outside the womb first you have to decide how long it has to stay alive to count. After all the womb is its natural environment, if I took you outside your natural environment you would survive for between 30seconds and maybe 5 min depending upon what environment you were put into. So if viable is able to survive past the moment of being removed, which I would think would be the most logical and proper definition of the term viable after all any viable creature wouldn't die immediately upon being removed from their natural envirnment but no creature could be expected to survive long, then again, we're talking about conception. If the child is removed even a few day after conception it will remain alive for a short period of time before sucumming to death in the unnatural environment, in a way they are even more viable than us as they can be revived after being frozen for years! something an adult can not do. The top limit of being revivied after frozen for an adult is considered 30minutes, children are a little better with some occurance of children being revived after being frozen in water up to 2 hours after being submerged. Today invetro clinics *which i disagree with for the record* create 'viable embros' for implantation. Cutting edge doctors that work with the youngest of humans consider them viable! Babies removed from eptopic pregnancies can be seen moving, even swimming, for several minutes after removal. If you say viability means surviving for an extended period of time, say, to the point they no longer need medical intervention to survive *while I dont think that's a fair accessment because some people will need medical intervention their whole life,but still* the earliest surviving preemie I could find just by a quick internet search was at 20 weeks, still well within the 2nd trimester. I'm pretty sure the record holder is 16 or 17 weeks, but it would take me longer to find that. 10 years ago 24 weeks was considered the absolute earliest 'viable' age. 50 years ago 32 weeks was considered the absolute earliest 'viable' age. So does that mean that right now its okay to kill anything under 16 weeks, but in 3 years when a 15 week old baby manages to survive or in 10 more years when we have the technology to save a 10 week old baby that mean that those babies can still be killed legally? Or does the law change every time we have a new record? What happens when a baby can be gestated from conception to 9 months in an artifical womb? Does that mean that abortion should then be illegal because any child can be saved medically regardless of when they are born or miscarried? Truth is there is no reason to set any sort of artifical barrier on the term 'life'. We know when life begins, conception, its a biological fact and no one tries to argue the point with animals, just with humans. Birth might be grand, but its not magical, nothing happens at birth to magically make something alive that wasn't previously, or make something distict, unique, or individual that wasn't that way previously. If you are for abortion at least be honest with yourself and anyone you might be debating with. You state, more or less, that you think 'life' begins when it can "continue to live" outside the womb. You're own word choice shows that you admit that life exists before that time or there would be no reason to say continue. If you truly believed life did not begin until birth you would have said something along the lines of 'life begins when air enters the lungs at birth' or 'life separates from the mother's life to its own life when its born' both of which i have heard from people who disagree with the scientific definition of life. More to the point both believed that human life was immaterial without consciouness and they decided that consciouness entered with breath. Which is a whole other debate and more about your beliefs in what defines consciouness than anything else.
Personally, I think that if a woman is pregnant and miscarries, she should absolutely be held criminally responsible for killing the child. She's engaging in an illegal activity, and by her criminally negligent act, a life was extinguished. It would be the same as if the woman had been on drugs, driving a car, and ran someone over. What if she wasn't aware of the person (because of the effects of the drugs)? Is she responsible then? Of course.
The interesting thing to me is the concept of a pregnancy being a surprise. Maybe we can't take all literature seriously, but every non-fictional story I've ever read that featured a pregnancy also featured at LEAST 2 people who would just nod sagely and say "I know the signs, that girl is pregnant" within the first month...to say nothing of women who seemed to be more in tune with their bodies, "knowing" within the first week (sometimes) what the changes in their bodies meant.
However, with no reference, there is no proof, so you can take this part about pregnancies without knowledge as ironic musing rather than statement of fact.
Finally, with regard to "when life occurs," I offer a quote from an ABC interview between Martin Bashir and Dr. Williams Harrison, an abortionist since before Roe V. Wade.
MARTIN BASHIR (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) When does life begin in the uterus?
DOCTOR WILLIAM HARRISON (PHYSICIAN)
When the fertilization occurs. That is a new life. And that's why I say that I kill life, but I kill something that's potentially a person. It's not a person.
You can make of that what you will. I also want to post the final statements of the interview...
MARTIN BASHIR (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) You've made abortion an accessible, a safe, a fairly straightforward procedure in your clinic. Do you worry at all that by doing so you've lessoned the gravity of what you're doing? That in some ways, you've undermined the significance of what you're doing?
DOCTOR WILLIAM HARRISON (PHYSICIAN)
Absolutely not. What I've tried to do is demonstrate how important it is to make a choice, a rational choice about whether you're going to have a baby or have an abortion. The most important decision that a woman ever makes is to have a baby. Whether you have an abortion or not is relatively minor. Basically, abortion is a method of birth control. You know, it's not the best method of birth control. But all it does is stop the birth of a baby that a woman doesn't want at a time she doesn't want it.
MARTIN BASHIR (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) Many doctors who look back on their career might reflect on great healings that they were involved in, great surgeries and operations which solved a serious, potentially life-threatening problem. How do you reflect on your career?
DOCTOR WILLIAM HARRISON (PHYSICIAN)
I've had one of the most emotionally satisfying careers that I can imagine anyone having. I can't tell you how satisfying it is, when two weeks after a young woman has come in distraught and thinking that her life is ruined, and she comes back two weeks after the abortion and she is a new woman. She's been given her life back.
MARTIN BASHIR (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) And for her to be born again, you've had to kill the fetus.
DOCTOR WILLIAM HARRISON (PHYSICIAN)
Uh-huh. That's right.
MARTIN BASHIR (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) And that's a fair exchange?
DOCTOR WILLIAM HARRISON (PHYSICIAN)
That's a fair exchange.
Essentially, Dr. Harrison is emotionally satisfied at having provided a slaughterhouse for self-important women who want to be able to have unprotected sex (married or unmarried) but don't want to deal with the "possible consequences." Three cheers for the "freedom of choice."
this is an update on the first post.
Brad:First, let me say that I am actually against abortion. My reasons though, have nothing to do with (or primarily don't have anything to do with) the idea that we are killing a baby. My reason is that I believe that before a couple considers sexuality, they should be prepared for the possible consequences of that sexuality, whether it be raising a child, or possible sexually transmitted disease. I just have a problem with the idea of making MY beliefs/morals into law. If we accept that the baby is viable from conception, as you contend, then yes, it would be murder, and thus already against the law. My understanding though, is that many fertilized eggs, for whatever reason, never attach to the mother's womb, and flush in the menses, so to me, viability would be once the baby is past imminent threat of natural miscarriage (is that understandable?).
Jespren:yes, some babies never attatch to the womb and die naturally. saying abortion is okay because the baby might miscarry naturally is the same as saying murder is okay because someone can die of natural causes. I'm not saying babies don't die. Sometimes they carry alive all the way to birth and then are still born, some die shortly after for no reason, sometimes called a lack to thrive, some die from SIDS, some make it to the ripe old age of 80 and die in their sleep. you say if what i said was true and the baby really was viable from conception then it would be murder and already illegal. maybe you, like so many, dont' actually understand the laws governing abortion. Abortion is perfectly legal for any reason up until the time of birth regardless of the baby or mother's health. Even if the baby is healthy, 'viable' outside the womb, and poses no threat to the mother it can be still be aborted until its actually born. In fact, it isn't even illegal to kill a child during natural delivery and call it a late term abortion as long as the baby didn't pass intirely through the birth canal (although I can't see anyone carrying a baby to term then deciding during labor to abort) As far as you feeling uncomfortable enforcing someone elses morality into law, what do you think law is? Every law on the books is nothing more than the majority's morality that is enforced on the minority. Rapists don't think rape is wrong but we tell them they can't rape, theives don't have a moral problem with thieft but we tell them its wrong, we even impose our moral views by saying you can't turn someone away from a job just because they are a particular race. Making abortion legal, and paid for by taxes much of the time, is forcing a morality that says killing babies is okay on people like me, who find it morally horrific. We don't have a choice. I get to be party to abortion whether I choose to or not because I am forced by the majority to pay taxes to a government that supports it. But when the law is based on a lie, missinformation, and ignorance we have a choice, an obligation even to change the law. Saying you don't want to legislate your morality means you don't think we should have any laws against anything, nor any actions prefered. The only form of government that doesn't legislate morality is pure anarchy, in which the strongest force their morality upon the weaker. Since you strike me as someone who not only votes but agrees with obeying the law I know perfectly well you DO want to legislate your morality to law.
Brad:just one thing, I meant I don't want to force MY morality on others, if my morality rides with the majority, so be it, but I won't try to force others
Jespren:then, no offense, but you're morals don't mean much to you if you are willing to let everyone but you decide what is morally right. although I suppose that means if the pro-life push manages to illegalize abortion you won't be voting to try to make it legal again.
Brad:no I wouldn't, I just believe that everyone is responsible for their own lives and morals
Jespren:tell that to a rape victim, the legislation of morality is required for civilized society
Brad:agreed, I guess what I'm saying is that regardless of society's morals, I will stick to my own, even if I am in the minority
Jespren:so if they decided to pass a law saying that human sacrifice would be legally protected provided the sacrifical victim or the victims legal guardian agreed with it or legalized pedaphila provided its done in a mbla approved setting and that your tax dollars would go towards the promotion, protection, and practice of those acts, you'd be just fine with that?
Brad:hehe no I wouldn't be fine with it, and I would protest, and vote against such things, but regardless .. if they DID pass into law, I would maintain my own standards, remember, the law doesn't say I have to be a pedophile, just that it isn't illegal to be one.. (in your example) Nor would I have to let my child be 'preyed' on by one of those pedophiles.
Jespren:who said you'd have a choice? Would you not rail against a law that forced your child to sit through a lecture on the benifits of an adult-child relationship without telling them of the proven destructive side effects? Wouldn't you try to get the law revoked? What if they told your children that you were just a moral fossil for not letting them and they should do it without telling you and they'd help by scheduling busses to take them to the mbla events without your knowledge? you say "the law doesn't say I have to be a pedophile" yet the law says you have to help fund those events with your tax dollars, your money is facilitating things you know to be wrong. Convicted pedaphiles could now be teachers, could not legally be kept out of the classroom, out of daycares. You wouldn't have any say in the matter if your 8 year old was convinced he wanted to go to a mbla 'prom' which culminated with him spending the night at a hotel with a 35 year old. If you tried to keep him from it you could be arrested, the ACLU could sue you for damages, the DCF could take your kid away, because you were interfering with his rights and the rights of his 'date', they weren't doing anything illegal, in fact they are engaging in a protected right that you were trying to quash. Any damage the pedaphile did to the kid, physical or mental, would be mainly overlooked since the act is legal and no one wants to admit that its damaging. And even if a pedaphile managed to get arrested for injuring a child, you can't keep him from reoffending since pedaphilia is his right. Sound far fetched? Its not. Everything I said can be applied directly to abortion. (Its already happened towards homosexuals as well. Its not that far away from happening with bisexuals, and pedaphiles are just a step behind. And that's not a conspiricy theory, that's what these groups have said.)
Post a Comment
<< Home