Posted by
The OttO Show on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:04:35 AM
Well Otto, lets do it your way. Lets discuss things from the standpoint that all (human) life is valuable.
Sounds reasonable. Could you start by defining "life" we can take it from there.
It's quite something that the Left on Newsvine is pushing me further and further to the Right on abortion. In the past I probably would have gotten myself involved in a long, drawn out debate over what dates and which physical characteristics matter or don't matter.
But it's not that complicated. If it can be killed, then it is life. The entire debate on 'when' it's suddenly no longer okay to terminate a life is beyond senseless and can only be seriously entertained by those who seek consensus on when, not if, it is okay to terminate it.
My wife is six weeks along. She dropped caffeine, she stopped with the occasional cigarette, the occasional beer, she's eating better and taking vitamins and other supplements. Should she not be bothering? What I mean is if life is meaningless until whatever magic date passes, then why should she need to take steps to take care of it? Is it any less important now then later to do things for the health of the baby, like living healthier? I don't think so and I'd be interested in seeing the argument that it is.
Some people want you to know that it's okay to talk about life in this manner because we aren't talking about a child, we are talking about a fetus. Outside of clinical situations, the only time a baby is referred to as a fetus is when killing it is being discussed as a reasonable option or a 'Right'. I'd love to see NARAL and other pro-abortion supporters word their propaganda with 'baby' or 'child' terms, like normal people talk, like real mothers talk, instead of 'fetus', which is how lab technicians and mortuary medical examiners and abortion doctors speak.
If the baby is just a fetus or just an embryo or just an egg...then the mother is just an incubator and any incubator that destroys what it is creating should be judged with the same application - we must figure out at what point an incubator that destroys it's biological charge is not considered a valued life, is not considered a 'person'. And does an incubator have Rights?
So if you insist on referring to children in the womb as embryos, fetus's or 'wads of tissue', be sure to reference the incubator where applicable and be sure not to say 'mother'.
Pro-abortionists decide in their minds that the value of human life is not as important to the issue of abortion as 'providing decent homes for unwanted children' (or eliminating them all together) or fretting over abortion laws or how we deal with birth control etc. and fine, these are all issues that you can be concerned about. But they are issues outside of the real abortion debate. You want housing for unwanted children? Then lobby your legislators to work on that for you. But don't expect anti-abortionists to put aside their concerns over the destruction of life in order to entertain these propositions that are used in this debate solely to redirect the issue into areas that avoid discussing the value of life.
Finally, getting deeper into the value of life: just the fact that different pro-abortion people have different ideas of when life is invaluable enough to be executed and tossed out with the garbage demonstrates through those variables that this position is a politically concocted concern designed to add some kind of faux legitimacy to the act of abortion. Life is life. Having a miscarriage in the first few weeks is still dealing with the end of a life. I know - we've been there twice. Imagine going up to two pregnant mothers, both at different stages and telling one that the life of her child is less valuable than the child of the woman standing next to her, all because some imaginary line says so.
While I support strong abortion regulations and restrictions, I do oppose all-out abortion bans. Many of you won't agree with the first part but if you agree with the second part, then do yourself a service and stick to issues like the 'Rights' or the safety of the mother. You might get people to meet you part way on some of the more reasonable arguments. But you might want to consider steering clear of positions and arguments that demonstrate moral desolation, arguments that enhance a lack of respect for humanity. Positions that compromise morals and the value of life will never, ever convince an anti-abortion person to concede an inch in this debate.
I'm standing evidence that it does just the opposite. Hey, if you keep working at it, maybe you'll convince me to start supporting abortions bans too!