When it comes to abortion…define life

In the Coeur d’Alene Press this morning three letters by obvious anti-abortionists: Dean Haagenson, Linda Lemieux and Don and Bernadette Haddleton.  One could go through the usual arguments about why it is possible even moral to be pro-choice, but instead; I won’t be doing that.  Instead I am offering a challenge as to why these people think it is moral to be anti-abortion.

The “right to life” argument is based on a “guarantee.”  That if conceived you are guaranteed to be born.  No, there is no guarantee that you will in fact be born.  The incidence of miscarriage as a medical complication to any pregnancy is a refutation of that guarantee by itself.  Or the guarantee that this is a “complete human being” at conception, is again refuted by any congenital defects that develop during a pregnancy.  The severity of which can lead to the death of a child at birth, or at any time there after.  By definition a “complete” human being is one free of defect.  Are less than complete human beings routinely born?  Yes, they are.  But there will always be a question as to how well they will function as “contributors to society” depending on the severity of their afflictions.  Oh yes, humans can overcome plenty of afflictions, but that is not the point.  The point is, that anti-abortionists seem to think that a conception is some kind of guarantee and it isn’t.  That their ideas about “life” is some kind of guarantee and therefore “rights” can be based upon it.  When, in fact, life is not a guarantee at all.

Miscarriage and congenital defects are the first such refutations toward “guarantees,” now here are some more; children who die in the thousands, here in this country alone, where the yearly total of infant deaths by entirely preventable causes is actually comparable to the yearly totals of abortions.  But just try to tell anti-abortionists that.  That even if you are born, there is no guarantee that you will in fact survive to grow up.  Their argument is instead, that you just want to see the child aborted.  No, the argument is, that you recognize that a child’s birth isn’t guaranteed to produce that doctor, that lawyer, that grade school teacher, that dance academy instructor, the next U.S. President…  Because life is precarious there are no guarantees about it.

Thus, I am quite sure I know exactly why the framers of the U.S. Constitution indeed who signed onto the Declaration of Independence said what they had about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  It wasn’t an anti-abortion proclamation as today’s extremists now like to think.  But rather, “life” was in how you lived it, what you did with it, what you didn’t do with it.  In short, the sum total of your experiences.  The freedom of your life was that no one may dictate how you live it.

On the other hand, anti-abortionists use the fetus to dictate to the woman how she should or should not live her life.  How telling then could the argument be where one writer intones, that a woman who wishes complete control of her body should start refraining from relationships.  Well now, doesn’t it take two to form a sexual relationship?  Isn’t it equally required of a man to refrain from relationships if he doesn’t wish to be an unplanned father?  As a prior writer noted, that sanctimonious desire to hold the woman solely accountable for her pregnancy when last he checked, it takes two to make a baby.  Apparently, where anti-abortionists are concerned, “immoral men” should never enter the equation.  But, according to the bible, immoral men do enter God’s equation.  As it is the sins of the fathers that leads to the wrath of God upon the children.  And among the lists of what God will do to the third and fourth generation of those who hate God, seems that abortion is a part of it.  Now tell me what anti-abortionist ever read his bible so thoroughly as to take those arguments into consideration?  Not from what I could tell, anyway.

The next item to be considered is that “human” in the womb.  First of all, the woman is a contributor of DNA to the “child within” unless she is a surrogate.  So therefore, there is no question that the “child” is part of her body.  But on the other side of any anti-abortionist mouth is the following:  The neighbor who doesn’t think like you, doesn’t look like you, doesn’t come from the same socio-economic background, who makes “lifestyle” choices that you totally disapprove of.  Yet, in order for any of the above to happen, that person must still be conceived and born, right?  The anti-abortion disconnect between the fetus and his neighbor is simply very telling indeed.  But remind such a person of that fact and he or she would simply argue:  oh, you just want that “child” aborted.  Actually, I believe the argument really is, when did you plan to keep your promises you made before the Lord your God?  There is a lack of righteousness in the majority of anti-abortionists’ arguments, and from a lack of righteousness is a denial of life.  After all, it isn’t only the woman who may have made the “wrong choice.”  Anti-abortionists hell bent on judging, can make plenty of wrong choices too.  The fetus as cypher in order to exploit it to some political end can’t be considered a “person in its own right.”  After all, a “person in his or her own right” would be free to think as they choose, believe as they choose, accept freely any socio-economic background that they come from without embarrassment, and make any lifestyle choice that they damn well want to.  But, again; to the anti-abortionist, the “person” in the womb is one thing, hating your neighbor for what he or she isn’t to you is quite another.

The above described is the definition of life.  Not simply an “organism” with a “beating heart” at some point during the early stages of development, but a human being after birth, who is in a position to make choices about how he or she lives.

One last point to make, anti-abortionists used to make the argument that abortion was the ultimate in child abuse.  Well now, how should we describe the woman who pregnant, gives birth to a child while sitting on a toilet while at a dance and effectively drowning the newborn?  To remind anti-abortionists of the fact that forcing a woman to have a child offers no guarantee that they’ll even be mothers.  And their counter argument would seem to be that oh, you just want the “child” to be aborted.  Really.  The woman gives “birth” while sitting on a toilet, cleans up, goes back to the dance and leaves her child to die probably should have gotten that abortion.  As she just proved that being a mother was not a decision she wished to make.  It is also the difference between what was at one point legal, and now, is defined as an act of murder.  Now, if the anti-abortionist demands “guarantees” to go with that “life,” obviously guarantees aren’t possible.


One Response to “When it comes to abortion…define life”

  1. Chong Allyn Says:

    I don’t usually reply to posts but I will in this case, great info…I will bookmark your site. Keep up the good work!

    low cost franchise opportunities

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: