Posted on 01/22/2003 8:00:21 AM PST by no other way out
Now I don't want to get off on a rant here, because basically tonight's topic is a minefield - Abortion. I couldn't be anymore on tiptoes if the show was being produced by George Balanchine. This is the Big Debate, and I'm talking bigger than who was the better Darren on Bewitched. Abortion is our nation's "Final Jeopardy," and I'll wager, Alex, that if our nation fights another Civil War, it will be about this. And I would remind you that this all from my perspective, the male perspective, a one-step-removed perspective, because I will obviously never have to decide on whether or not I should have an abortion. And by the way, my belief is that if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortions would be easier to get than food poisoning in Moscow. Having men decide the fate of a woman's reproductive system makes about as much sense as asking Quentin Crisp to coach the Raiders. All right, enough qualifying, let's get on with it. There's no doubt that passions run high on both sides, and this issue has created a divide in this country not seen since Carly Simon last yawned in public. The prevailing opinions on a woman's freedom to choose are going further to the right than a Greg Norman tee shot.
Pro-life activists attempt to paint anyone pro-choice as having no morals. On the other side of the ledger, pro-choicers are tagging pro-lifers as crazed and backward bible-thumpers bent on running the lives of the people who disagree with them. The truth, as always, is, the case of human endeavors lies somewhere in between. As much as the advance scouts on either side of this issue might not want to admit it, good people do get abortions and other good people are pained by their decision to get one.
Where do I stand? Well, I'm like most of you, I presume, I think there are far too many abortions performed in this country. And I also believe that at the end of the day, as much as I might disapprove, none of them are really any of my business. Look, there are always going to be arguments on this issue. The debate will rage until the end of time no matter what the whim of the Papal infallibility or the politics of the decade. But the simple truth is, that such a passionate and personal decision dictates that the choice be left to the individual. And you know, that's really all we can do, because we're just human beings, stumbling around in the dark, trying to get to the bathroom and kicking the shit out of our shins on the way there.
Now there's some things all right-minded human beings should agree on. We should all agree that abortions should be legal in the case of rape, incest and when the mother's life is at risk -- that's just common sense. But excluding that obvious assumption, everything else in the abortion arena is "in play." There are many quagmires complicating this issue. Religion. Now it seems that religion is most often the backboard for every bank shot put up by someone making it their business to get into your business. Roman Catholic doctrine forbids abortion. Fine. Take that into consideration when you make your decision. Right-to-life proponents contend that abortion is immoral. Fine. Take that into consideration when you make your decision. Another pothole on the road to a sensible resolution to abortion is "when does life begin?" At conception? When a heartbeat is detected? At the first drawn breath? You know, for me it wasn't until last Tuesday. Until then I was just a sperm with an accountant! Okay, so those are the variables, and there are obviously millions more variables that make each individual case unique. But the more you think about it, and the more it makes your head spin, and the more confused you get trying to figure out someone else's life for them, it becomes increasingly apparent that it has to be the call of the individual who is pregnant, because the collective, one way or another, won't have to suffer the consequences of that most personal of all decisions.
My fellow Americans, it is time to suck it up. Look deep into your immortal soul (if you believe you have one) and do the right thing. Have the courage and strength to live your own life, by your own standards, and stop trying to call the shots for everyone else. We all live with glaring inconsistencies, and sometimes, when you see something going on right in front of you that offends you to the very core of your being, sometimes the best thing you can do is walk away, because you know that's exactly what you would want them to do for you. There's only one judge on all this and that's God. And you don't get to meet him until you go backstage after the play is over. And believe me, you do not want to get a "thumbs down" from the guy who created thumbs, all right? In the interim, everybody has got to tend their own garden vis-a-vis abortion. And remember, when it comes to your body, only you wear the robes, and only you carry the gavel.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
You are completely wrong here: There's a direct corelation...
Slave owners did not believe that the slaves were human so denying them full rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was not a problem. Abortion supporters do not believe that the fetus is human so denying them full rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not a problem.
Abolitionists believed that slaves were human, and deserving of protection. Pro-life supporters believe that the fetus is a human being, and deserving of protection.
What abortion supporters are doing is telling the pro-life supporters to ignore what they believe is the unjust taking of a human life, just as slave owners wanted to abolitionists to ignore what the owners saw as none of their business.
Mark
I sensed the nonsense coming, and I was right.
Keep to the less challenging threads and you'll be okay.
Sure deb, whatever. -- It's certainly tough to outshine your posting record in the challenged division, I'll grant you that.
Women have a self evident right to control their own bodies, thus to terminate a pregnancy to secure that right; - to a point. -- This is a fact of life, imo.
But of course, the woman does not have a self evident right to control the bodies of her children. "Terminating a pregnancy" is merely a euphemism.
The exact point at which the embryos life, and rights, should be protected by the state is a 'moral' question, imo, ...
Again, I don't see how this is a "moral question", but the "right to self-defense" is a "fact of life". What is the difference between a "moral question" and a "fact of life"? Your use of language here seems vague and arbitrary.
...which the USSC has wisely left up to state law & the people, ...
But have they? Can a state today pass a law outlawing abortion?
...- with the arbitrary setting of this moral point at the 2nd trimester....
If the USSC has "wisely left up to state law" then what is this "arbitrary setting"? Sounds contradictory.
We recognise the 'right to life' of a potential person, imo, -- not that of a fertilized egg/embryo, still inseperable from the life of its mother.
You lose me here also. A "potential person" has a "right to life", but a "fertilized egg/embryo" doesn't? What is the difference between the two?
Sorry that you seem to consider debate on this issue an "inquisition" leading to "thumbscrews". Perhaps you should avoid discussing the topic in the future if you find it disturbing.
Why must a ~person~ be viable outside the uterus in order for it to have the unalienable right to life??
You've alluded to in vitro conception and offered it as a proof that there is no individual human life at conception, going even further to use the specious phrase 'fertilized egg' in reference to terminating an early form of human life. Here are the facts from a scientific point of view.
The haploid gametes (sperm and ovum each having 23 chromosomes) unite and a single combination of the 23 each chromosomes are united to form a 46 chromosome unit. Within hours at most, the first cell division occurs (called mitosis).
That initial mitosis is the proof, to a scientist, that a new individual human life is in evidence. With first cell division, the 'fertilized egg' term is nonsensical since there is no longer an egg but an individual human life.
What weighs on the side of scientists accepting mitosis as evidence of a newly conceived individual human life? The goal they have set for that newly conceived life. The scientists won't seek to ustilize the newly conceived individual human life for harvesting of its body parts (stem cells, in the case of the earliest individuality) if the proof of successful conception is not in evidence. without the proof of individuality via mitosis, a scientist will not consider the effort successful.
Conception of individual human life does take place in a petri dish with in vitro fertilization, the foolishness ravings of Orrin Hatchling notwithstanding. Once fertilization has been accomplished, the oeprator watches for cell division as the proof of successful conception. Later, a cell mass is implanted in an effort to accomplish a pregnancy, to achieve life support for an already existing individual human life in its normal state of life for that age bracket.
If you're going to argue for modern cannibalism, have the decency to be honest, else you're no better than the liars of NARAL and the other organizations supporting licit hiring of a serial killer to off the preborn.
As to personhood, the law is becoming vague even in that area. Suffice it to say that legal personhood and common sense personhood are at odds, presently. If our nation doesn't soon bring these duplicities closer together, to protect nascent life from conception onward, the cannibalization of embryonic and fetal individual human life will continue and grow to heinous levels.
Provided what's being said is the truth. I give you points for acknowledging that objective truth exists.
I have to take issue with this. By 1973, and the Roe v. Wade decision, states were going in the other direction -- toward liberalized abortion statutes. California had already swung in this direction, as had New York. What the pro-aborts were seeking to strike down with the case in the Supreme Ct. were laws that put restrictions on abortion, not laws that proclaimed abortion as murder. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that by the time of Roe v. Wade perhaps only Mississippi and Alabama had laws calling abortion murder. What the pro-aborts wanted was to wipe away all state restrictions; they got it.
For what? Could you provide the source for that?
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.