Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5D91138F93BA35751C1A966958260
Here’s an oldie but a goodie on the separation of Abortion the Health issue being looked at apart from the Abortion the Moral issue: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,957302,00.html
And just for fun, here’s one Catholic view of the sin in contraception: http://www.scborromeo.org/glad/c4.htm
My theory is, if they think that contraception is bad, and masturbation (spilling the seed) is just as sinful, then why has no Catholic teaching tried to outlaw menstruation? After all, menstruation is spilling an egg, isn’t it? It’s pretty much the same as spilling seed, right? So why are women allowed to menstruate, but men not allowed to masturbate? Is it because one is generally more pleasurable than the other? I’m betting that’s the only reason. Heaven forbid anyone have pleasure that doesn’t result in creation of some kind. Okay, I hope you enjoyed some of that information I found online. It was some of the data that has brought me to my own current beliefs. It was not taught to me or instilled in me, it was research I acquired for myself. I just wanted to pass it on, so that others may see where I’m coming from.
And on a side note, I hate that anti-abortion and anti-contraception proseletizers want to claim the title “pro-life.” After all, their “pro-life” laws have killed, and many of them would use capitol punishment to enforce their anti-abortion laws. The very term “pro-life” has yet to be earned by anyone who supports capitol punishment or anti-abortion extremists, if you ask me. As far as I can tell, the Pro-Choice men and woman are far more deserving of the phrase Pro-Life than any of their opposition. But hey, I’m open to hear arguments to my latest statements.
Just a quick Pro-Choice opinion.
I’m living across the street from a Planned Parenthood, and this morning there were a couple vehicles with huge signs attached to the backs, sporting large photos of aborted fetuses and the words: ‘ABORTION IS MURDER’ all over them. There are many picketers walking the sidewalks with their anit-abortion signs and slogans, and I wonder: if they are so committed to calling for the illegalization of abortion, then what do they personally think the punishment for illegal abortion violators should be? What would they condemn women who get an abortion with—what punishment?
I just want to walk up to them and ask. But if I did ask, I fear they will fail to give me a straight answer, and just fall back on the age-old argument that abortion is a form of murder. It’s exhausting to make a case against a blind arguer who knows so little about what they demand, that they quit before any real ground is covered. And it’s even more tiresome that these picketers feel that regardless of what the punishment is assigned to violators, the act of abortion should still be illegal, as long as they don’t have to feel like they are the stone throwers. So much for their courageous crusade…
I’ve heard many people argue that since they are not lawyers, they can not answer what punishment would fit such a “crime,” but then again, my own argument is: I’m not lawyer either, but even I can argue for the side of pro-choice without being ashamed of what I believe (like they seem so afraid to hand out punishment.)
To prove my point, here is my argument: First of all, a fetus is not biologically recognized as ‘sapien’ yet, according to its definition. Even at week 20, a fetus is NOT capable of autonomic life. What does this say to me? It says that by anatomical definition, a fetus could be no more classified than as a growth until at least the 26th week from conception, when the lungs can handle air without the aid of a machine or the womb. Conclusively, I assure my audience that a fetus cannot be murdered, and therefore women who have an abortion cannot be accused of such a crime. Without a crime, the act of abortion cannot be illegalized, as the pro-life supporters claim.
Further, because the fetus itself is incapable of living on it’s own apart from it’s parent host (the pregnant mother), I feel it is comparable to when a doctor must sever someone’s arm. An arm or leg cannot live apart from the body, but we don’t accuse an amputee of murder, even though the former appendage had suffered a “death” of sorts after being removed from the body. Personally, I think that until a child is born and capable of autonomic survival outside the womb, it is not a ‘sapien’ life form or a “human being” deserving of more rights than its parent host. The women who are alive and want the right to choose should be allowed such a privilege. After all, she is able to survive as a person– an autonomic and sound life. But that’s just my thoughts on the matter. Maybe I’m wrong.
But if I am, may God strike me down for believing that life is more complicated to achieve than mere conception.
Oh, and in challenge to my Pro-Life readers: If you could answer my question for me noted in bold at the top of this blog post, I’d appreciate it, and even state publically that you deserve a cookie.
