Ok, so Dr. George Tiller was a late-term pregnancy abortion doctor. He performed abortions of badly deformed fetuses, where the health of the mother is in jeopardy, and things of the like. He performed these legally, and was recently acquitted in Kansas, where he performs the abortions, for any wrongdoing in these abortions. Pro-life extremists believe that he was needlessly executing babies that could have survived outside of the womb. I do not agree with the statement, because it is not logical. Why pay $5,000 to keep a baby alive when it is not viable? Wouldn't the mother just elect to have a premature pregnancy if the baby was cool to live? It doesn't compute to call it needlessly killing babies. There had to have been a reason for the babies to be aborted.
Another thing I do not find logical is the fact that adult human life is less important than baby human life. There is a disconnect there. Is it because the adult life has become worthless? Are we to believe that fetuses who have not become fully capable human beings are more important than a man who has lived a number a years? Shoulda, coulda, woulda is always used about abortion, but it doesn't work, because anything could happen, and one will never know either way, letting the baby live or aborting the baby.
How does one define a human? Do we say that we can reason abstractly, which separates us from animals? If that's the case, then I would say about half of a normal pregnancy is not considered human as we know it. "Life" does begin at conception, however, but it is not human life. A blastocyst resembles more of an amoeba than a human being, and it probably looks like a chimp's blastocysts, and we're not too worried about having to abort a chimp's baby. "Life" is a single cell organism that can sustain itself. Now, if we are to think the latter half of the pregnancy does have a conscious human being, I can say that abortion would not be a good choice, UNLESS there is a good reason. If a baby is deformed, how is it justified to bring a life into a society that it cannot perform to the best of its ability? And also, which is more important: the adult mother or the unborn fetus? I believe the mother takes the cake.
My last thoughts on this revolve around religiosity. Pro-lifers say that they are Christians (mostly) and then promote or commit murder. If they believe God is the judger (I know, not a word), then the judgement should be left to God. If Jesus' beliefs are to be followed, then one must turn the other cheek. If the 10 Commandments are to be followed, then one shall not kill. There is no caveat to that commandment, there is no asterisk. Murder is not righteous. No killing is warranted. And certainly, murder should not beget murder. If you believe abortion is murder, then your belief tells you that the abortionist will face judgement for those crimes against God.
I have a feeling my thoughts are all over the place. If you have something to contribute, on either side to the debate, please comment to me, and I will try to clarify or continue to the discussion.
3 comments:
Have you read "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris? He talks about the value of human life in regard to stem cell research, etc. I think you'd find it very interesting.
The concept of "life" itself is much fuzzier than most people think.
i think that was pretty well said, bro.
This is not a subject I know anything at all about, but hey, since when has that stopped me?
Mainly, the bit about "deformed babies." I'm not entirely sure this is what you're saying, but there's a view that babies with impaired motor or mental functioning shouldn't be brought to birth because "their life wouldn't be worth living."
Life is worth living, period. When a fully grown adult reaches the conclusion that it isn't, we forcibly institionalize him, as I believe we should. A person's right (and in some sense duty) to life is not affected by how fun a time he does or doesn't have. If I have any solid view on this general subject, it's that can't decide for somebody else whether it is or isn't worth living.
I'm not talking so much about cases where the baby isn't expected to survive except for a short while. I'm talking about it being destined for a hard life.
As for endangering the mother, I kind of assumed that it was common law that we favour her. Even if it isn't, it makes sense to me. I'm not even sure I can back this up with anything. It seems to me that a doctor's job should be first of all to protect the life of his patient. It should be the mother's choice whether she wants to risk herself for the sake of her unborn child. I guess that's just where I stand as regards a woman's right over her body (or I guess her life).
We protect the life of the living before trying to bring on new life. It's where we try to protect more minor things than life in the living at the cost of new life that things get confusing for me. I mean what can science really tell you, ultimately?
Post a Comment