Abortion breaks the cycle of life that began long before the womb.

To resolve the issue, then, let us take a look at life as it is born into the world. The new baby, most of the time, is said to be "alive," depending upon various and sundry "vital- signs, "Vital" from "vivus" being LAtin for "life, living." Yet, we do not conclude that the baby "became" alive at the moment of birth, for then we must concern ourselves with the prebirth "kicking" of the babe in the womb. Is it alive? Or is it just "thinking about life to come? ("For lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb, for joy" Luke 1:44). It is my position, life begins before the moment of birth.

If the very definition of "life" involves the ability to point precisely to some perceived "spark," at which time an embryo becomes viable, or "alive," then I'm afraid the debate will continue to rage unabated. But I really believe we can do better than that, in our approach to such an important issue.

The first question I would raise, is a very simple one. Was the egg alive, or dead, at the precise moment it was joined by the sperm? If it was dead, how could the gametes then become a zygote, and grow to an embryo? A Foetus? Be born? A toddler? The simple answer to this question, then, is, the egg was alive. Did the mother originate life in the egg at the precise moment she passed it from the ovary to the Fallopian chamber, to begin its cycle, or was the egg alive when it was first produced into the cycle of the system?

The second question pertains to the sperm. Did the male give it life at the precise moment it left his testicle, to begin its journey in the cycle, or was the sperm alive while it resided in the male, awaiting the ejaculation process?

Now, we know that some Males are sterile, and cannot beget children. I do not address that issue here. And some Females cannot bear children. I do not address that issue, in this simple offering. The only issue I address is the issue of identifying the precise moment of the beginning of definable "life" in the "cycle of life."

I could get into a discussion of the effect of "puberty" upon the young potential Father, and Mother, but it would prove to be futile, because there have been no definitive scientific studies published, to my knowledge, pertaining to the moment "life" is passed to the egg and the sperm, due to Puberty. so, let's move on.

Life MUST reside in the body of the child, in order to mature in the adult. Where does it lie in wait? Where did it come from? Did the potential parent go to the doctor for a "progeny" shot. No! Is there a "make a baby" shot which passes life into the system. No! Not within the cycle in question.

Now, if life can be determined to be within the adult, prior to mating, and in the child, prior to maturation, and prior to puberty, whence did it come? Vitamins in the food, perhaps? No! Minerals? No! I don't believe it can be shown to be dietary in nature. Though diet may very well play a part in other aspects of the cycle of life, and passing it on.

The answer is simple, and leaves nothing to debate. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a "living" soul." Genesis 2:7 (King James Version)

"...And God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..." Genesis 1:28 (King James Version)

After God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful, and multiply, and after man was cast from the garden, God revealed to them a secret, which still has men debating to this day. He told them where "life" was located in the cycle of life and death.

"Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." [Lev 17:12]

"For it is THE LIFE OF ALL FLESH; the blood of it is FOR THE LIFE thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off." [Lev 17:14]

"Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for THE BLOOD IS the LIFE; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh." [Deut 12:23]

And so God tells us that the process by which "life" is passed to the egg is accomplished when the egg attatches itself to the wall of the uterus, and blood vessels are formed, by which life continues to be nourished in the gamete, in the zygote, in the embryo, in the foetus, in the baby, in the Birth canal, In the passage of birth, and after the umbilical cord is cut, life continues in the new-born. It did not originate in any step of the cycle. It was passed from Parent to child, all the way back ot its origin..... in the Garden.

"....And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel, thy brother? And he said, I know not. Am I my brother's keeper? And He said, what hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground." (Genesis chapter four, verses 8,9,10)

And there is the further statement I think pertinent to the debate, "Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb..." [Isa 44:2] And lest some one think this means "from" as in "post partum" look again at "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." [Jer 1:5]

When one of the debaters can show me someone who came into this world separate and apart from the cycle of life, as herein described, I shall re-evaluate my conclusion.

These are actual excerpts from ROE v. WADE

"Section IX"

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. ..they outline at length and in great detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is ever established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment. The appellant concluded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

"But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word (person) is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."

Further excerpts...

"...it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of provacy she possesses must be measured accordingly..."

The matter that the Court addressed here is that after a certain point the privacy issue established by the founding of this case on the Fourteenth Amendment at some point loses it's relevance as pertaining only to the woman, because the longer the pregnancy is allowed to progress, the more relevant the State's rights become in protecting potential human life, specifically after "the point of viability" set by this very Court.

Another excerpt..

"...conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs."
(Section IX, Roe v. Wade)

So from what I have just transcribed from the case of Roe v. Wade clear distinctions can be made with logical assumptions concerning the laws of medicine and nature.

We are now so medically advanced that we no longer have to rely on natural means of conception, there are alternative options readily availiable. BUT, these new leaps in medicine need NOT apply in LENGTHENING the viability of the unborn in the womb when it comes to a "woman's right to choose" verses the need to protect "potential human life" as described in ROE V. WADE.

We can also deduce from such reasoning that an endangered reptile, or bird whose eggs are laid, since it hasn't became a breathing, "living" life sustaining being, isn't protected under it's "parent's" protective clause, because it hasn't yet became what is deemed "protected."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.