This is not a story or report of any kind. In fact, it's just an opinion. It's an opinion to add fuel to the fire of a debate that's been in place since a supreme court ruling many years ago. Some of you will agree and some of you will disagree. Yet, I believe this would end the argument at the basic local level where it deserves to be ended. The debate centers on the right to choose versus the right to life. Let the yelling begin.
I must confess I will never have a body that will ever reproduce. I am a man. (Hold your relieved exhalations to a minimum) So, for some of you, you say that my opinion is invalid. I would have to disagree. My opinion would have mattered prior to my birth. And it still does. I do realize that the choice to undergo an abortion is perhaps the hardest choice any woman or couple would ever have to make - for many of us. The ramifications are extraordinary and final. There is no undoing what get's done. It's permanent. For some, it is made as young teens. For many, the ability to drive a car in a licensed way, or obtain alcohol or cigarettes is regulated by the state but the ability to abort a fetus seems to be a constitutional right (the argument thrown out in most discussions) that covers those younger than the age to drive or drink or smoke. The living status of an unborn fetus seems to sit lower on the scale of importance in that regard. We call ourselves a civilized society but this does seem to spit in the face of morality versus a person's choice in respect to their body. Once that life is created (some argument seems to protrude on this issue) it cannot be reversed. A sperm fertilizing an egg is the initialization of life. To say that life begins after birth is a comparison to a car leaving an automobile factory versus a windshield wiper sitting in an auto parts store. It's one that should not be made lightly. So when does a car become a car? Is it merely at the drawing board of some artist? Does a car begin when the parts are designed and engineered? Or is it only a car when it leaves a car lot with an owner behind the wheel? The discussion could go on and on but I dare say that a baby is complete in being labeled alive once the genetic fabric has been sewn in two after conception takes place. The human form or life has a code written down that can change through mutation or responses to outside disruption from chemicals or radiation or disease but the baby is a completely mapped out genetic being from the moment of fertilization. The eye color is fixed. The sex is fixed. Yes, we can argue about chromosomes and the changes in form during the gestation period in the womb but one could argue, and rightly so, that the fetus will become what it was meant to become. A blond female with brown eyes is still a living creature even if she started out with green eyes in the womb. I would have to say a fetus is a living person in the womb as defined through the parameters of mental and moral accountability. Some would argue that a chicken egg thrown against wall is the equivalent of aborting a human fetus. I disagree. That chicken egg, if alive, is still alive. We are not the chicken or rooster that started that life. Our moral code does not hold that egg in the same standing as a human baby. Throw a two year old against a wall and the world will throw you in jail. Throw a chicken against a wall and someone will ask if you're trying to tenderize your supper. Children are not raised on farms for their nutritional value, are they? The rationality of the chicken egg versus the fetus is invalid. So what do we do as a society? I know the answer does not exist in throwing a fetus' against the wall.
I believe, in my opinion, that a ruling by the supreme court of the United States, cannot choose whether a human life begins in the uterus versus a two year old child. Some laws of science cannot be adapted for legislative or judicial rulings while others are ignored. The term "life" has a different meaning for everyone but I do believe that life is as complete for a fetus versus a birthed human. The potential exists whether a fetus has left the womb. There is a connection between mother and child. There is an individuality for that fetus or fetus' in the case of multiple fertilization(s) such as twins or triplets. One cannot kill off a twin because the other is a duplicate in genetic code can they? They are individuals with potential for good or evil. They are individuals with the potential for happiness or sadness. They are individuals regardless of the hardship or trouble they may bring to the woman (or couple) deciding to neutralize the fetus. Fetus is such a cold and sanitary word. I prefer the term "baby". Whether a couple wants the child or a single mother doesn't, does not change what is growing in the womb. Once the first cell splits - it's life. And it cannot be stopped. Even in its basic form, a fertilized egg has stopped just being an egg and has become something more. And even from that first second of fertilization to the last dying breath of that man or woman, a human it is.
The only answer I can see at the moment is full disclosure to any potential woman or couple arriving at an abortion facility. A short video. The footage could show in its first half the trauma and birth of a successful birth. The second half could be footage of an actual abortion procedure. With our current laws and findings in the courts it would seem to be up to the individual carrying the unborn child in determining the fate of the continued life of that fetus. I believe every woman should be given the full ramifications of their decision. It is about the children. No matter what stage. Or simply make it a law that any patient of a abortion procedure must view the trash can filled with the remains of the previous customer of the doctor's handiwork. I believe the "choice" would result in fewer "statistics". My name is Rueuhy and I approve this blog. Please email me if you feel the need - rueuhy@gmail.com
I must confess I will never have a body that will ever reproduce. I am a man. (Hold your relieved exhalations to a minimum) So, for some of you, you say that my opinion is invalid. I would have to disagree. My opinion would have mattered prior to my birth. And it still does. I do realize that the choice to undergo an abortion is perhaps the hardest choice any woman or couple would ever have to make - for many of us. The ramifications are extraordinary and final. There is no undoing what get's done. It's permanent. For some, it is made as young teens. For many, the ability to drive a car in a licensed way, or obtain alcohol or cigarettes is regulated by the state but the ability to abort a fetus seems to be a constitutional right (the argument thrown out in most discussions) that covers those younger than the age to drive or drink or smoke. The living status of an unborn fetus seems to sit lower on the scale of importance in that regard. We call ourselves a civilized society but this does seem to spit in the face of morality versus a person's choice in respect to their body. Once that life is created (some argument seems to protrude on this issue) it cannot be reversed. A sperm fertilizing an egg is the initialization of life. To say that life begins after birth is a comparison to a car leaving an automobile factory versus a windshield wiper sitting in an auto parts store. It's one that should not be made lightly. So when does a car become a car? Is it merely at the drawing board of some artist? Does a car begin when the parts are designed and engineered? Or is it only a car when it leaves a car lot with an owner behind the wheel? The discussion could go on and on but I dare say that a baby is complete in being labeled alive once the genetic fabric has been sewn in two after conception takes place. The human form or life has a code written down that can change through mutation or responses to outside disruption from chemicals or radiation or disease but the baby is a completely mapped out genetic being from the moment of fertilization. The eye color is fixed. The sex is fixed. Yes, we can argue about chromosomes and the changes in form during the gestation period in the womb but one could argue, and rightly so, that the fetus will become what it was meant to become. A blond female with brown eyes is still a living creature even if she started out with green eyes in the womb. I would have to say a fetus is a living person in the womb as defined through the parameters of mental and moral accountability. Some would argue that a chicken egg thrown against wall is the equivalent of aborting a human fetus. I disagree. That chicken egg, if alive, is still alive. We are not the chicken or rooster that started that life. Our moral code does not hold that egg in the same standing as a human baby. Throw a two year old against a wall and the world will throw you in jail. Throw a chicken against a wall and someone will ask if you're trying to tenderize your supper. Children are not raised on farms for their nutritional value, are they? The rationality of the chicken egg versus the fetus is invalid. So what do we do as a society? I know the answer does not exist in throwing a fetus' against the wall.
I believe, in my opinion, that a ruling by the supreme court of the United States, cannot choose whether a human life begins in the uterus versus a two year old child. Some laws of science cannot be adapted for legislative or judicial rulings while others are ignored. The term "life" has a different meaning for everyone but I do believe that life is as complete for a fetus versus a birthed human. The potential exists whether a fetus has left the womb. There is a connection between mother and child. There is an individuality for that fetus or fetus' in the case of multiple fertilization(s) such as twins or triplets. One cannot kill off a twin because the other is a duplicate in genetic code can they? They are individuals with potential for good or evil. They are individuals with the potential for happiness or sadness. They are individuals regardless of the hardship or trouble they may bring to the woman (or couple) deciding to neutralize the fetus. Fetus is such a cold and sanitary word. I prefer the term "baby". Whether a couple wants the child or a single mother doesn't, does not change what is growing in the womb. Once the first cell splits - it's life. And it cannot be stopped. Even in its basic form, a fertilized egg has stopped just being an egg and has become something more. And even from that first second of fertilization to the last dying breath of that man or woman, a human it is.
The only answer I can see at the moment is full disclosure to any potential woman or couple arriving at an abortion facility. A short video. The footage could show in its first half the trauma and birth of a successful birth. The second half could be footage of an actual abortion procedure. With our current laws and findings in the courts it would seem to be up to the individual carrying the unborn child in determining the fate of the continued life of that fetus. I believe every woman should be given the full ramifications of their decision. It is about the children. No matter what stage. Or simply make it a law that any patient of a abortion procedure must view the trash can filled with the remains of the previous customer of the doctor's handiwork. I believe the "choice" would result in fewer "statistics". My name is Rueuhy and I approve this blog. Please email me if you feel the need - rueuhy@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment