***The topic for this blog came to me a few days ago and even though I'm not sure who, if anyone comes across this little piece of the world wide web, I sometimes struggle with over-playing some of my most important topics. So I struggled with whether or not to write this and I finally came up with the conclusion that as far as my beliefs go, I haven't done much to fight for them. Blogging is probably the most ridiculous thing I could do, but it is something. So I write.
Today I'm going to attempt something that I've never done before. Nor do I have any other writings to draw inspiration from. The thoughts to follow came from my own mind just a few days ago, as I said before. I have done my best to follow up all of my facts with credible sources.***
I have argued this topic more times than I can count. I've written papers, participated in protests and debates and I've had personal arguments with people I've come in contact with. I've argued my points from the perspectives of both religion and science. From my experiences I have learned one thing, people do not want to be convinced.
I think this is a truth that stands with any topic, but especially one that tends to create such bad blood as this. It seems, from my experience, that people who are on opposite sides of this debate really hate each other. I've had people call me horrible names, though I'd never return the favor. They diminished me personally, and my beliefs. I don't believe that this is a proper way to debate. I think these reactions come from strong feelings of hate, and I still to this day do not understand it.
But today I try a new approach. I don't want to argue for life from the prospectives of either religion or science as neither one has worked in the past. Today I ask you to look at the facts of the past actions of our government; and I ask you to look at yourself and your fellow Americans in a new light. We are one. They want us to forget that we out number them. In the past, our forefathers would not have stood for such blatant disregard for democracy. I don't think we should, either. Never in the history of our country has there been such a loss of power among the voting public.
There are several key points that pro-choicers bring up every time I talk to them. They're first argument is that abortion is a woman's choice and that a fetus is not a baby. I ask you this, does science make a baby, or do we? The basis for my question comes from a recent court case from Missouri (Willis Bailey, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. 8-02-05). This case is an appeal from a man charged with murder when he stabbed and killed a woman he knew was three months pregnant (within the legal realm of abortion). He asks the court to reconsider as there is "no factual basis to support his guilty pleas relating to the unborn child".
Division Three holds: An unborn child is a person for purposes of first-degree murder, and Bailey's deliberation on and intent to kill a woman he knew was pregnant necessarily included deliberation on and intent to kill the unborn child. He was charged with two counts of first degree murder. (By the way, the baby was his, and he was aware of this fact.)
This case, taken place many years after Roe v. Wade has been alive and well, has decided that the killing of an unborn child, in the first term in fact, is murder. Why? How is this different than if the same woman had gone to an abortion clinic and aborted the child of her own will? Probably because of those last four words "of her own will." I believe that this definition completely squashes the entire pro-choice argument. To say a fetus is not a baby based on scientific "fact" (sorry about the air quotes but, it simply is not fact) is one thing. But to say a fetus is a baby only if the mother decides that it is, is quite another. It either is, or it isn't.
Scott Peterson was charged with the murders of both his wife and his unborn child. Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant at the time of her murder. I mention this in order to cover both ends of the spectrum. You could argue that I didn't bring up a case involving a woman in her second trimester, but to that I say what is the difference? Does a fetus suddenly become inhuman between the fourth and seventh month and then human once more in the eighth? I think not.
My point in bringing this up is such: I have many theories as to why the government would want abortion to remain legal. I also believe that it will always be legal, as much as that saddens me to say. I just don't see a change in the future. But I also believe that most Americans are not aware of just how important case law is. The judicial branch is in place to check the executive and legislative branches. Roe v. Wade occurred a long time ago and case law has since reversed it. The only reason it is now still in place is that of politics. I'm sure you've noticed that no one talks about abortion more than every four years when we have primaries and elections. Politicians know, and intentionally keep, abortion as a hot topic in order to gain votes.
I don't think it's a matter of science or principal anymore, friends; I think it's a matter of politics.
Now because I've started this discussion, I'd like to go ahead and bring up (and squash) a few more of the opposing arguments while I'm at it. The political discussion is my main point, as I don't think the rest of this matters, but I'll do it anyway since I have your attention.
After arguing that abortion is a mother's choice and that a fetus is not a baby, pro-choicers will usually take the "unwanted child and child abuse" stance. Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973. Since then there have been babies found in trash cans, toilets, and under beds. There have been countless cases of child abuse and neglect and deaths resulting from such. I don't think abortion being legal has changed anything. Sadly, some people are very ill and will have children and beat them or murder them regardless of what the law allows. Those who want abortions, get them. Right now, the law allows for a woman to abort a baby and never even tell the father. It allows teenagers to get abortions without parental consent (in most states). If abortion were a solution, there'd be no reason for me to have to read about babies dying in trash cans, or children beaten or neglected by uncaring parents. Deserving families wait on lists for months, even years, for a baby to be born and put into the adoption system. All this being said, the unwanted child argument simply cannot stand.
The third argument I hear the most is that if abortion is made illegal, women will have to go under ground to get it done and that is very dangerous. I wonder, in these days of extremely convenient malpractice suits, how many doctors would be willing to sacrifice their licenses to do underground abortions for (what the pro-choicers call) poor, scared teenage girls. I'm willing to bet very few would. Those who did would surely eventually be sued by women who were unable to get pregnant again, or who later regretted their decision, thus ending the under ground abortion railroad, if you will.
Now that I've said what I've come to say, I ask you just consider the validity of the points made, especially those involving the court cases I mentioned. I don't think these are facts that we should sit on and say, "Well that's nice, but nothings going to change." Things may never change, that is true, but I don't want to be someone who didn't try.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant at the time of her murder.
No. Laci was 7 1/2 months pregnant when abducted. Conner was at or almost full term when he was cut out of her body, and she lived at least 2 and possibly 4 weeks after that. Don't believe it? Consider:
• A visibly pregnant woman vanishes from her home. No signs of a crime can be found - anywhere - ever.
• Her body turns up four months later, found on the shore of San Francisco Bay, a place where many other bodies have been dumped.
• Her uterus has been cut open by someone unskilled in medical procedures.
• The fetus and the placenta are both missing.
• Some distance away, the body of her child is also found.
• He shows no signs of prematurity, he is full term and he is not curled up in the fetal position.
• The fetal cord has been crudely cut.
• A piece of twine has been double knotted around his neck, not to harm him but to keep his body wrapped in plastic bags to protect it. One of the bags is found nearby.
• The mother is wearing underwear with a wear pattern which shows she has worn it for the whole period of her abduction - 111 days.
• Her clothes are still on her body, something which could not happen unless they were retied after the baby was removed. It also shows she was in the water for a day or two at most.
• Her uterus is two to three weeks post partum, showing that she lived at least that long after the baby was removed from her body.
• Although the body of the mother is simply discarded in the sea, either from the Albany Bulb or more likely from Point Isabel (it has been suggested in the Hoffman channel), the body of the baby is carefully laid on the shore at Point Isabel so it can be found and buried. This is clearly the work of someone who cared for the baby.
What part of this does NOT look like a failed fetus napping, where both mother and child have died?
Very interesting, but not at all my point. Thanks for the input, though.
Post a Comment