Relative life
Here's a response I sent to the editor at Forbes.com for an article published today:
In the abortion debate the basic issue is whether or not the fetus is to be considered a human person. If the fetus is a person then abortion is immoral, if it is not then abortion is no more an issue than removing a wart. That being said, the pro-abortion camp gives away their true stand in some of the things they say. For example, in this article the claim is made that a fetus younger than "x" weeks of gestation cannot feel pain and, therefore, does not need anesthetic during an abortion procedure. The question that comes to my mind is this: If a fetus is not a human person, why do we care if it feels pain during a medical procedure designed to remove it from existence? The back-side of this question is: If it is a human person, then why is it acceptable to kill it? We all know that even a simple, fertilized zygote has all the genetic structure of a fully-developed human being. And with that genetic structure being unique, it is a unique human person. We also know that like produces like. Fish do not produce rabbits and dogs to not procuce lizards. In the same way, human beings produce human beings. Those who are in favor of abortion either do not understand that what is being destroyed is a human life or (and I'd rather like to think that this second group is very small) they advocate killing of innocent human beings that they deem as unfit to live according to their own subjective standard. I would like to conclude by stating that, since there is a debate as to when "life" begins, why not give the innocent child the benefit of the doubt. If it deserves the dignity of anesthetic during this gruesome procedure, why not allow it the dignity of its first breath from the womb?
In the abortion debate the basic issue is whether or not the fetus is to be considered a human person. If the fetus is a person then abortion is immoral, if it is not then abortion is no more an issue than removing a wart. That being said, the pro-abortion camp gives away their true stand in some of the things they say. For example, in this article the claim is made that a fetus younger than "x" weeks of gestation cannot feel pain and, therefore, does not need anesthetic during an abortion procedure. The question that comes to my mind is this: If a fetus is not a human person, why do we care if it feels pain during a medical procedure designed to remove it from existence? The back-side of this question is: If it is a human person, then why is it acceptable to kill it? We all know that even a simple, fertilized zygote has all the genetic structure of a fully-developed human being. And with that genetic structure being unique, it is a unique human person. We also know that like produces like. Fish do not produce rabbits and dogs to not procuce lizards. In the same way, human beings produce human beings. Those who are in favor of abortion either do not understand that what is being destroyed is a human life or (and I'd rather like to think that this second group is very small) they advocate killing of innocent human beings that they deem as unfit to live according to their own subjective standard. I would like to conclude by stating that, since there is a debate as to when "life" begins, why not give the innocent child the benefit of the doubt. If it deserves the dignity of anesthetic during this gruesome procedure, why not allow it the dignity of its first breath from the womb?
posted by Jim V. | 10:54 AM
1 Comments:
I guess because ascribing rights to an unseen lump just doesn't justify cramping one's style. If wombs had windows I wonder how much abortion advocacy there would be. The tide of public opinion regarding partial-birth-abortion certainly turned when the visual aids were employed during the Senate hearings.
Post a Comment
<< Home