Posted on 07/26/2006 5:33:50 AM PDT by Numbers Guy
Conception — the point at which life begins. At least it is according to the fundamentalist community, anyway. The stance of Right to Life supporters is that abortion is outright murder and deprivation of life. I disagree. How can you kill something that is not yet living? Besides, banning abortion deprives the mother of her rights to property and to the pursuit of happiness. A fetus is not a living human, and the mother has the right to decide to abort it.
During the first trimester of the pregnancy, the fetus is merely a wad of cells. A mere wad of cells doesn't equate to a fully functioning, living human being. A wad of cells cannot make its own cognitive decisions. A wad of cells doesn't have the capability to inhale or exhale with its lungs. A wad of cells cannot survive independently, as it relies completely on its mother for all its nutriment.
So why would anyone provide a wad of cells with the outrageous status of a living human being?
The point I am trying to make here is that a fetus is not a living human, and therefore, an abortion is not responsible for annihilating a human's life. Besides, in legal terms, the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade concluded that human life does not begin until life can be sustained outside of the womb. Medically speaking, premature fetuses can very rarely be kept alive if they are born before the pregnancy's sixth month, or the end of the second trimester.
The mother deserves every right to make a decision to abort her fetus. The supreme law of our land, the U.S. Constitution, guarantees Americans have the right to their property. Are pets not considered the property of a human? Humans provide pets with food, water and a habitat, just as a mother provides a fetus a habitat inside of the womb, along with food and oxygen.
And because mom houses the fetus — that not only required her X sex chromosome, but also gained half its chromosome pairs from her ovum — the fetus should be considered property of its mother. Not to mention, the wad of cells inside her doesn't have the ability to choose for itself.
Banning abortion would be a greater deprivation of basic human rights than continuing to uphold it. So why not allow the mother her innate right to decide whether or not this wad of cells will grow into a human?
If anything, a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host.
Tapeworms are parasites that house themselves in the intestinal tracts of humans, feeding off the food the host consumes. Comparatively, a fetus is little more than a tapeworm. It is quite common for humans to annihilate parasites with medications or toxins, so why not allow for fetuses to suffer the same fate?
Now let's compare the Right to Life stance of abortion to the tragic fate of many fertilized eggs.
Fundamentalists fiercely oppose abortion because they believe it is murder. They often recognize those who are "slaughtered" by holding vigils and other ceremonies.
Do any of these individuals realize that according to the National Institutes of Health, 25 percent of conceived embryos perish within the first six weeks due to complications such as failure to implant to the uterus wall? That's right — a quarter of all "humans" conceived end up "dying."
It would appear that the "loving" God of these fundamentalists is many more times guilty of murder than all the human race's abortionists combined.
If life begins at conception, why is it that Catholics and other fundamentalist groups don't have funerals for all these dead "babies"? Why not hold candlelit vigils for all who fail to implant themselves? Or wait, better yet, why don't we supply a birth certificate to all those embryos who died shortly after conception? Why not make them legal citizens too?
Do these last few statements seem absolutely asinine? Then some of you are in dire need of rethinking your anti-abortion stance.
Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb. At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy.
Shane Krouse is an MSU sophomore and State News columnist. Reach him at krousesh@msu.edu.
Hi Veronica,
I think you hit the proverbial "nail-on-the-head". I would also add that this is the kind of thinking that results when we reject absolutes. Everything becomes relative.
I once saw a bumper sticker that summed up the whole argument very well:
"Abortion---the ultimate example of big people picking on little people"
Brian
Who here does not mourn the 1/4 of fertilized eggs that do not implant?
We all do. Right?
Last rights should be peformed.
Right?
It is what I taught my 4 daughters.
Apparently brain cells of the cortex begin to form at about day 30. Now, when there are brain cells there might be brain function. Human brain function. Since we are brain-centered now, thinking that the human brain is mainly what differentiates humans from animals, we ought to also think that presence of human brain neurons means the human is undoubtedly present in the foetus at that time. That is within the first trimester.
Another thing: this kind of thinking is not scientific. In fact, it is the kind of thinking that leads some trolls to say that all FReepers think the same.
Dear utahagen,
"Young pro-choice woman can be hot, but I'll bet no one's made a pass at Eleanor Smeal in forty years."
That's just not true.
I'd heard that Molly Yard was always after her.
;-)
sitetest
"A wad of cells cannot survive independently, as it relies completely on its mother for all its nutriment".
I propose an experiment for this brilliant young empericist. Take the strongest, fittest, intelligent newborn infant EVER and place that baby on a table in a room with enough food and water for 20 years, perfect climatic conditions and sanitation facilities and lock the door to any outside assistance. Come back in 10 days and tell me if that child is still alive.
The obvious answer does not occur to this moral cretin as he seeks to rationalize yet another vacuous justification to kill that which is so self evidently human.
" == Another thing: this kind of thinking is not scientific. In fact, it is the kind of thinking that leads some trolls to say that all FReepers think the same. == "
Yes, the author's shallowness and inability to comprehend any fact or opinion outside his narrow worldview are a bit reminiscent of some things I have seen on a few threads here.
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.