Subscribe in a reader

Jul 7, 2011

2 Pro-life commentary

I'm very oppose to abortions/stem cell research, and find it appalling that people consider it a choice argument, over a life argument. I would make it illegal at any stage to terminate a life (only under certain, rare medical conditions, should their ever be a choice involved). And at conception, there is life developing (whether you believe it or not, a catalyst has started which started the process).

And, no one can argue that if left undisturbed, the life would continue to form throughout the processes (unless stopped by a cause of some form). You can argue that the life-form could naturally abort itself through a miscarriage, or through some natural/accidental means: but, such reasoning is outside the scope of the argument. The whole reason for abortion is to terminate the life that is growing inside of a woman (So clearly, the life-form is alive and abortion is the act of terminating life; if it would terminate on it's own accord, there would be no need for an abortion.)

So then, the argument would go to: the life-form isn't fully develop- so, it isn't considered an intelligent/conscious life-form (like a bacteria, or virus, or plant). This is where our morality/ethics would come in, take over. There is no way to determine when a life has a soul/or proven that we even have a soul. So, it is nearly impossible to say with scientific certainty, if by ending the life's development, we are also terminating a self-aware, conscious, or spiritual entity. This is when our values take over through assumptions and personal insight.

I like to treat it in a simpler context: if left undisturbed, without dangerous interactions, a left form would continue it's development to becoming a new-born baby. The act of abortion, is the termination of a life at early stages of development, and the reasoning behind it: is destructive, selfish, and irresponsible. So, for me, it becomes more about the rational behind the matter, and the consequences of the act, rather than, the merits of the life's right's to live (although, those rights are just as important).

The choice argument really bothers me on multiple levels. If it really was a personal choice, no other life-forms would be involved. Our right to chose is offsetted by our interference with another's rights. Therefore, it makes no sense from a logical/intellectual standpoint. If there was a right to chose, it would only have been: when they choose to have sexual intercourse (or, lack there of a choice: in cases of rape and forced conception). In case of the former, a malicious act doesn't negate another victims rights (the life-form that is developing). It doesn't suddenly give someone else the right to commit a likewise heinous act. Therefore, I don't know how it ever became legalized.

In any event, these are my thoughts on the matter, and you have yours.

Take care,