RToD 25JAN2012 – Life Starts When? (Or, Pro-Lifer’s Petitions)

Random Thought of the Day – Life Starts When? (Or, Pro-Lifer’s Petitions)

Those of you who’ve known my blog for any length of time know that I’m not afraid of discussing politics. There’s been one time that I wrote a political piece that I censored it myself simply because the topic with grossly hot-button at the time. (Gun control when the Senator got shot in the head) Normally, though, I’m fine with accepting discussion about politics because I believe that more people should do so.

From the title of this, I’m certain that this is going to cause some serious confusion for those who see it, and I honestly have a feeling that people are going to read a little bit and not bother to read the whole bleeding thing before writing to me one way or another.

I got an e-mail today from the website townhall.com. This is a very conservative site, and I believe I got on their mailing list when I wrote their site before. Anyways, the e-mail was to get me to sign a petition demanding that congress pass a law that states that life starts “At Conception.” The idea is to bypass the Supreme Court’s Rowe vs. Wade ruling by taking advantage of the court’s own statement that they cannot and will not determine when life begins, and creating a set point in time that a fertilized egg is alive. Doing so would bypass RvW and outright make abortions legal. Yay for the “pro-lifers,” right?

I have an issue with this. It stems from my belief that life actually never truly starts at any real point. The egg and sperm were alive before they merged into one unit, so therefore life was there before conception. Those cells had to be created by a living being, so therefore life existed before intercourse. At what point is there a time to make a differentiation? There isn’t one. So why is there a petition to create one?

I’ll get back to that topic shortly.

Let’s think of something completely separate from childbirth – boats. Boats? Yes, boats. Ships, specifically. When you look at a ship, say, a cruise ship, you see lifeboats. If you go digging far enough, most likely you’ll find a captain’s yacht. All of these boats are considered part of the ship until launched even though they are independent and are whole on their own. These boats are NOT their own until put to sea, yet no one is demanding that each boat be licensed and labeled independently. Why? Because we accept that they are part of the whole until needed.

Why did I bring up ships when we’re talking about birth? It’s simple: if you ignore the flesh/blood part, it’s no different. The individual boats on the ship shared the same energy and propulsion, or life, until set out separately. For all intents and purposes, the ship is pregnant with these smaller boats until it gives birth to them. These smaller ships are not considered actually independent, or their own lives, until they are under way on their own, and that’s even if they’re still attached to their “mother” ship by a cord!

Let’s move back to living beings now, including life’s “starting” or stopping or lack there-of. What makes an embryo/zygote/fetus different than the boats on the ship? Because it can eventually create an individual life. That said, it’s still a lifeboat until it’s launched, using its mother’s energy to be moved around. It has the potential to be a full life but is, up to this point, not. Does that mean it’s not alive? No, because there was never a disconnect from when it was alive and when it was conceived based on my thoughts about when life starts, or, more accurately, that it never stopped.

So, where does that leave me? I’m personally against abortion as birth control, and not entirely at peace with it when used to relieve the woman of a child conceived of rape, statutory or physically-forced. That means I’m “Pro-Life” and this kind of thing makes me happy, right? Yay for “Life Begins at Conception,” right?

Uh, no. See, I may be against abortions as a whole, I’m also very strongly of the opinion that I do not have the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your body. And my own take on life is at odds with the assumption that “Life Begins at Conception.” If the egg and sperm weren’t alive, they never would have met and there would be no pregnancy!

Anyways, to sum up my thoughts about why outlawing abortion would, in general, be bad, I’m going to paste it here. This is an actual letter (well, e-mail, but you get the idea) that I wrote to Senator Rand Paul, the instigator of the petition e-mail I was sent.  (Please note, I understand that I didn’t post the body of the e-mail to use as context.  The e-mail itself was almost as long as this entire blog post!)

Since you have deemed your point of view more important than anyone else’s, what do you propose to help support all these unwanted children that are now being forced, as you say, “down our throat?” What do you have in mind to deal with the sudden burst of additional state and federal help required for all these children born without the means to be properly supported? What do you have in mind for their food, clothing, education? And, at what point is birth control considered murder based on this flawed mindset? What about a child conceived in rape, which is not only a gross violation of a woman but becomes a never-ending reminder of the horrible atrocity committed to them? Your position says nothing about these points, and they are NOT SMALL POINTS! All that seems to matter is that more taxpayers are born.

Let’s get something straight to start with: I disagree with abortion. In my honest opinion a person who is “mature” enough to go through with having sex should be “mature” enough to raise a child, though in truth that’s just not necessarily the case. However, even though I disagree with abortion, I also have a full and standing belief that I do NOT have the RIGHT to tell ANYONE that they cannot have one, and I challenge you to point anywhere in the Constitution that says that we do. Yes, I am anti-abortion but pro-choice. I don’t have the right to tell a person that they cannot use drugs, alcohol, smoke, or take a squat in the woods, and I have just as much right to tell them what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. And, let’s face it, even in the womb, it’s still a part of the woman’s body, therefore I cannot, of sound mind and body, tell a woman what they can do with it.

 There are several issues that would need to be factored in when dealing with this kind of “response” to a court ruling that you can’t manage to work around. The first is the costs, mentally, physically, emotionally, and financially. By demanding that all “life” begins at conception, you’re incurring an emotional toll on the woman who may or may not be ready for the child to be born. The child can and most often will be paid for by the government, state and federal, because the number of women who become pregnant without the means to support it will not be able to foot the bill. Then this same child may find themselves emotionally and physically neglected when the woman cannot afford the food needed to keep the child and herself nourished, as well as the emotional toll of growing up being despised and unwanted by the woman who is supposed to be nurturing and caring for said child. At what point does your demand to make life-at-conception cover all, or even any of these costs? Never.

 Another issue stems from the fact most attempts to prevent pregnancy, or birth control, would also become illegal. Many birth control pills and chemical agents trick the body into thinking it is already pregnant, hardening the uterine lining and normally preventing the body from releasing its egg. On the chance that the egg is release, though, and should it become fertilized, when it doesn’t attach to the uterine wall does that make the woman guilty of murder when the egg passes during menses? Or perhaps the IUD Mirena should be removed from the market because its job isn’t to prevent an egg’s release but the egg’s implantation in the lining by irritating the lining and causing it to not accept the egg, fertilized or no. Any woman using this and other versions would be, in fact, murderers to this poorly-thought idea. And the Morning After pill, a drug given to women who find themselves victims of rape and are worried about pregnancy, also becomes illegal because there is no way to be certain that there even is any fertilization or not! What does this leave? The considerably-less effective barrier method or the unrealistic expectation of abstinence, as well as the loss of many, many jobs as the companies who create these birth control methods no longer have a reason to maintain their work force.

Then there are the millions of children in the US who are living in foster care that need our real attention. Why are these children, those in real need of care because they are ALREADY BORN, less important than requiring unborn embryos be forced through to birth? What makes keeping every sperm and egg combination “alive” that much more important than the needs of those already here and living the nightmares that your legislation would be bringing to millions more children? Wouldn’t it be more helpful to save the hearts and minds of those already here by making legislation making adoptions that much easier?

There’s also the very real fact that creating a law that in effect outlaws abortion will not stop people from finding ways to end unwanted pregnancies. Instead of clean, sanitary, reasonably safe locations for these abortions to be done, they will instead be done in back corners where no one can see them, unmonitored, unsafe, and a much greater risk to those who have them. “Falling down steps” or “Accidental abdominal impacts” will become that much more common ways out of the potential legal ramifications of back-lot abortions, and women will die or become forever sterile from these actions! At that point there would be no concern over when life begins because it won’t happen at all.

In conclusion, I feel it’s my Constitutional right to remind you of yours. You should not be pushing a woman-controlling mindset on the people because it’s not your Constitutional right to do so. Please, stop demanding that a woman’s simple right of choice is forfeit simply because you want more voters and taxpayers, or worse, because you’ve decided a religious dogma is more important than the freedom of the people who’ve chosen you to represent them. Do not be “Playing God,” as you so aptly put it, in forcing others to do or not do something simply because your personal belief is that it’s wrong. Write and vote for laws based on the freedom and rights of the people and not on some unquestioning belief that something for you and your family is bad, and work to end the notion that a woman’s choice is subject to laws that tell them that the choice truly isn’t there, because that is your job as a US Senator.

I then signed it and sent it on its way.

So, yes, even though I am personally against abortion, I’m all for supporting your right to do as you please. So, “Anti-Abortion, Pro-Choice.” Sounds counter-intuitive, but, hey, it’s Wulf here.  Since when have I ever made perfect sense?

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: The Random Thought of the Day

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: