A new voice in the abortion battle

[Jinglebob]

I am posting this here, as I think it is a sound and reasonable argument in the abortion debate. The author is a well educated and intellegent person whom I know well and have a hig regard for and a lot of respect. After a few days, I will let you know who the author is. The author does not read this site, so if you care to cuss and holler at what is written, know that the author will not know about it. At least not for now.


Over and over again, I hear the comments about “reasonable” exceptions. Rape, Incest, and a Mother’s life are surely reasonable exceptions. This debate strikes me as a debate about principles, however, as opposed to pragmatism. It would be pragmatic to allow exceptions in the case of rape or incest. It is not, however, reasonable to do so.

The argument of those of us who support the bill, do so on the grounds that it takes a human life. This point has been much debated, but still remains far from solved. Indeed, compelling arguments have been posited by both sides. I side with those who suggest that life begins at conception. It seems to me that this is a reasonable place to suggest that life begins. We know that there is no substantial difference between a child moments before birth and moments after. As a result, we cannot reasonably assert that life begins outside the womb. We have all heard of radically premature babies surviving. They, too, then would seem to be alive before they are born. Thus, the question remains, when does the life begin. We are looking here for an objective answer – one applicable to every human person. Because of this, we cannot simply allow each person to arbitrarily choose when the life has begun. There is a moment when something is alive and when it is not. The most reasonable place that I can see is to assume that this moment is the moment of conception. To place this moment at any other point than birth (a notion we have proved to be false) is to make the point of the beginning of life as less than objective. This cannot be so. Once alive, a thing cannot be more alive than another thing of the same species – in other words one mother cannot say that her child is alive at twenty-two weeks while a second mother says that her child is not. The only safe conclusion that I can come to, then, is to assume that life begins at conception until irrefutable evidence to the contrary can be found.

So, if life is present at conception, is there such a thing as a reasonable exception. In my mind, there is not. If, in principle, we believe that life is valuable and should be preserved, it seems to me that it is the responsibility of the government to protect those who cannot protect themselves. This country prides itself on the notion of majority rule and minority rights. This was the basic principle that led us to war (most countries can’t protect themselves against a nuclear threat). It was the principle behind the civil rights movement (minority races hadn’t the political sway to force their own equality), and even debates about the death penalty (the government needs to allow a person every opportunity to prove his/her innocence). Now it is the principle behind the debate in South Dakota. A human needs to be protected who cannot protect him/herself. Rape and incest are horrible, but they cannot justify a homicide. There are certain debates where pragmatism cannot rule the day. This is a debate of principles. The introduction of the pragmatic element into the debate detracts from the full seriousness of the this debate’s outcome.

[Disagreeable]

[Red Robin]

Hmmmmm , Baxter Black?

[katrina]

I'll guess....Will Rodgers....

[Red Robin]

Will isn't in too good of health these days is he Katrina. I hear he has a case of rigamortis.

[Jinglebob]

[katrina]

It could be someone dead............ Jinglebob never said anythng about him being dead or alive........ Or even when it was written......

[Soapweed]

How would you like to be married to Disagreeable? Life would tend to lose its preciousness.

[Silver]

I hate to say it but Dis makes some darn good points here. I was going to ask a while ago if a boys 'nocturnal emissions' would send him to the 'big house' by some peoples definitions of 'life'.
I would also like to point out that I have no memory of 'life' in my first trimester. If I were to have been vacuumed out at that stage I doubt it would have been overly traumatic (I seem to have no memory of other traumatic events following my birth either that many people seem to consider 'cruel and unusual'), and I believe it would have been my mothers choice to do as she saw fit given her circumstances.
Human beings 'play God' every day, whether it's on death row, on the farm, on the battle field, on the operating table, even by just doing nothing.
Life has no black and white, and I'm disappointed in the many good people in here that seem to see these issues as just that. It's not for you or me to decide what's best for everyone in their own set of circumstances. In this case that would include the mother, zygot, or embryo.
Common sense would tell me though that when the unfortunate circumstances come into play that call for an abortion, that it would be performed as early as possible. Within the first 5 weeks perhaps?
Anyway, that is the world as I see it today.

[Red Robin]

[Soapweed]

[Jinglebob]