| |
| |
| |
| |
However, even though the baby rapidly reaches a point where the physical qualities of a human being are apparent, life even earlier than that should also be regarded as human. While life at conception is often viewed as a religious idea, it may surprise you to know that many biologists, geneticists, and others in the medical community also consider conception the beginning of human life. The embryo may not look human, but why should we expect a human at the beginning of his development to look the same as a human further on in development? A born person looks different as a child or a teen than he will as an adult, but he is no less human as a child or teen despite these physical differences. So too does the unborn person look different as an embryo than he will as a full-term baby, and so too is he equally human at each stage of development. He has the 46 human chromosomes that tell us scientifically he is indeed a human as opposed to being a cow, horse, or pig. From the start, the embryo has the complete genetic info that will determine all or part of many things that make up humans' identities as individuals: physical traits, personality, intelligence, susceptibility to certain diseases. Conception creates a unique individual who has a unique destiny as a human being.
While many pro-choicers like to refer to the embryo/fetus as a "potential human life", the sperm and egg are actually the closest thing to "potential human life". The sperm and egg are not individual genetic beings, just parts of individual genetic beings. They will die soon if they remain separate and conception does not take place, but when they are brought together they lead to an individual, entirely new life. There is no point at which the embryo dies or disappears and a recognizably human baby takes its place; rather, there is simply a change in the embryo which transforms it into the recognizably human form of a more-developed child. What was once a tiny human life in a form unfamiliar to us (the embryo) changes into a tiny human life in a form we are familiar with (the better-developed fetus). Life is not a matter of one minute being a wad of tissue and the next minute a life, but a continuum.
*Note: it becomes especially important to establish the humanity of even the very young because of the potential for certain "contraceptive" devices, such a birth control pills, Norplant, Depo-Provera, and IUDs, to act as abortifacients. This means that, instead of preventing conception, they may actually cause a very early abortion. If you use or plan on using a contraceptive, please carefully research your birth control method. Make sure you understand how it works. Read more info about birth control pills' abortifacient properties.
It's very basic in American society: with rights come responsibilities. If you exercise your right to participate in sexual behaviors, then you have a responsibility to understand the potential consequences such as pregnancy and accept them if they arise. If a life is conceived, a life that didn't ask to be conceived, then it is our responsibility to protect that life rather than destroying it for our convenience. Although there is the issue of rape and incest, such situations are very rare and extreme circumstances (I will discuss those circumstances further down). The vast majority of women choosing abortion became pregnant voluntarily, and are not victims of a forced pregnancy.
Most pro-lifers are certainly NOT anti-woman or anti-feminism. If you wish to exclude pro-lifers from feminism, you'd be excluding many famous feminists who paved the way for the contemporary feminist movement, such as Susan B. Anthony, Mary Wollstonecraft, Victoria Woodhull, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, and others. To accuse the original feminists of being opposed to feminism is simply absurd. If anything, the pro-choice segment is the group that deviates from the original feminist philosophy.
Besides the historical precedent, I think it is empowering for women to celebrate natural, unique aspects of femininity such as pregnancy. Women's ability to give birth is a precious contribution to the continuation of society that should be respected, not considered an inconvenience to be done away with. The implications of the pro-choice argument are that the female reproductive system and its natural function of supporting pregnancy are an inconvenience, a fault, and a disability in a woman that she simply is not strong enough to endure. The implications of the pro-life argument, however, are that while not all pregnancies come at an ideal time, we know that women are strong enough to handle such situations without resorting to violence against the child as an answer. We're willing to help these women find other answers, other CHOICES, because we DO care about them as well as the unborn women (and men) of the future they carry.
Another aspect of the gender issue is, what about those fetuses that are aborted because they are female? In areas where women are not valued by society, it is very common to have an ultrasound to determine the child's sex and then kill the baby if she is unlucky enough to be a girl. To support abortion on demand for any reason is to essentially condone abortion even for reasons such as sex-selection. But...doesn't condoning abortions of females just because they're females send a message that it's okay to regard females as worthless? I would call that the worst kind of sex discrimination of all, certainly not pro-woman or feminist.
The most obvious example of injustice in laws is slavery. For many years, it was perfectly legal to own slaves. One group (whites) did not wish to recognize another group (blacks) as fully human (just as, today, some don't wish to recognize human babies as fully human) and thus the laws allowed whites to regard blacks as "property". We now recognize that this wasn't right, and thus must acknowledge that laws are not infallible.
Another example of laws being in error is that of discrimination against women. It's a bit hypocritical of anyone who supports feminism to say, "It's legal!" to abortion, when feminists have had to fight to change laws that made it legal to discriminate against them. If we recognize that laws aren't always right or perfect, using the "legal" argument to justify abortion is invalid.
Yet the truth is, a woman's child is not her body. A fetus is nourished and protected by his/her mother's body for nine months, but this does not mean the fetus and the mother's body are just one individual. If a gardener provides fertilizer for a flower's nourishment and builds a greenhouse for the flower's protection, does that make the flower and the gardener one and the same? No. Does the fact that the flower is inside the greenhouse mean it is the greenhouse? No. So why does the presence of a fetus inside a mother mean she/he is the mother's body?
There is additional reason to consider a fetus separate from its mother. For example, a fetus has a separate genetic makeup. Obviously, if the fetus were part of his/her mother's body, she/he would have the same genetic makeup of all the other cells of the mother's body, instead of having 50% of his/her genetic makeup contributed by the father. A fetus also often has a different blood type. Anyone who understands the basics of blood transfusion understands that you can't put two different types of blood in the same body, so why would one "part" of the mother's body have different blood than the rest of the body, unless they were actually separate individuals? Likewise, what if it's a male fetus? If a male fetus were a part of his mother's body, it would be logical to say that, because a woman is carrying a male fetus, she herself is partially male. In other words, it would be proper to consider her a hermaphrodite, since she would have her original female reproductive system as well as the male one developing in the male fetus. Logically, however, we recognize that the male organs are not hers...because the child's body is not her body.
Even though the circumstances of conception might be tragic, it is far more healthy to give the child a chance to live. The perpetrator would probably be glad if the woman had an abortion, as it would destroy the evidence of his actions. However, to give life to her innocent child is a way for the woman to triumph over the assault and its perpetrator. It is a way to make something good come of an awful situation. A child who knows his mother loved and valued him enough to give him life even in the face of an awful situation will no doubt pass on that love and generosity to other people in his own life. The woman can go on with her life and healing knowing she made a very loving and generous decision.
If you were given two children and told one was conceived from a brutal rape and one was conceived from a loving marriage, you wouldn't be able to determine which was which just from looking at them. So why is one less worthy of life than the other? What a gross injustice it is to sentence the innocent children of rape or incest to death, when giving a death sentence to the father of the baby, the man who committed the rape or incest, would bring great protests from many of the same people who defend the right to "choose" abortion.
Advocating the elimination of those deemed "unwanted" is the wrong way to eliminate the problem of children being abused. Child abuse is an indication of psychological problems, not a simple matter of "liking" or "wanting" the child. No mentally sound person would abuse a child regardless of if the child were wanted or convenient. If you concede that is true, then how do you know that someone who isn't mentally sound would recognize she wasn't a good parent? The fact is that child abuse has skyrocketed since Roe vs. Wade. Is it possible that this is because, through abortion, we have pushed women into an unhealthy attitude that violence against their children is acceptable? If you're truly concerned about unwanted and abused children, you would do more good in supporting making adoption, not abortion, more accessible. There are many people out there who do want the child (in fact, there is a shortage of infants available for adoption), even if his/her mother doesn't.
As for the disabled, how can we ever determine that someone will have a good life? Doesn't everyone deserve a chance to make the most of whatever life they do have? Happiness depends on the individual, not on their life circumstances. Just as growing up in a loving family with all material comforts imaginable doesn't guarantee the child will be happy or productive, growing up in less ideal circumstances doesn't guarantee a child will be unhappy or unproductive. There is a lot of prejudice against the physically and mentally disabled in this world. Are we really worried about the child's best interests, or are we simply going along with society's perception of disabled people as useless? Many disabled people lead lives they value and enjoy despite their setbacks. They may not have the same physical or mental abilities of others, but they still have worth, potential, and dignity. If nothing else, consider that we are in an age where medicine and science are making great progress in treating and managing disabilities. Perhaps a child who is severely limited at the present will be able to enjoy wonderful opportunities as an adult making use of some technology we can't even imagine right now.
To condemn these precious children to the certain violence and horror of abortion in the name of protecting them from the potential pain of a disabled life is a very ugly thing. Hitler put many physically and mentally disabled people to death along with the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. How can we say, "Never again" to the Holocaust and then continue down the road of prejudice against those perceived as "inferior" or "unworthy of life" anyway?
You might say that it's the mother's choice to decide if she can take care of a child with that problem. If a mother is able to decide that she can't handle a disabled infant, where does that lead us? Can a mother decide to kill a child whose disability didn't become apparent until he was born, or a child who became disabled because of mistakes made during the birth? What about a mother whose child becomes disabled later on in life in an accident? Does she still have the right to eliminate the "problem" and kill the child? Or what if the mother has no personal objection to raising a handicapped child, but pressure from family and society forces her to feel obligated to eliminate the child "for the greater good"...what kind of "choice" is that?
 | This Pro-life site is ownedby peper JOIN the ring! |
| [Skip Prev][Prev][Next][Skip Next][Random][Next 5][List Sites] | |
