When does life begin? Well, since there is no line, there is no moment when a baby changes from being an inanimate object to a life, from being an animal to a human, then the only lines which can be drawn are conception or birth. Yet if you look at a baby at 8 1/2 months, the only thing different between a born child and unborn is the dependancy on the mother. To kill the 'fetus' at 8 months is horrifying, it is so obviously human. So, I believe the only place to draw that line is conception. This is my opinion. I have yet to hear an argument on this from a pro-abortion camp. They always, as I did when I was pro-abortion, slide the argument to the mother. This should not be about the mother. Decisions are difficult, consequences are difficult, but in the vast majority of cases those decisions were made before conception.
First BQ, I want you to know that I completely agree with you on abortion. I throw out the following as ideas to chew on.
My friend, before he passed on, was a retired lawyer. An accomplished one. We used to spend a great deal of time discussing politics, society, religion, etc. We were discussing abortion and he introduced me to the idea of "the quick and the dead". According to him, in trial cases where the mother lost her unborn child as the result of another's negligence, the question inevitably arose as to whether or not this was manslaughter, murder, or what have you based on the situation. Apparently, if the child was moving (quick) in the mother's womb, it could be argued that you ended a life. Otherwise, it was just an unfortunate event and some lesser amount of pain and suffering could be monetarily adjusted.
Now I disagreed with him (atheistic socialist vs. fundamentalist Christian). I argued that the moving child was considered a life. Does that mean that five minutes before that child became quick in the womb he was substantially different? An hour before that? A day before that? A week? I told him that I believe life starts at conception and, as usual, we agreed to disagree.
He asked me if I believed in pro-choice. I said yes. "So you'll vote pro-choice?" he asked. I told him no. His eyes popped open then and he asked me why. I told him that I believe everybody should have the right to chose but there is only one correct choice and people are not making it so it needs to be regulated. Before he jumped on me I reminded him that our society regulates things much less important than this all of the time. Helmet laws, discrimination laws, smoking laws, etc.
I know there are plenty here who would disagree with me. I don't mind. You are entitled to your opinion.
The reason this is such a critical issue - where life begins - is the far reach and deep impact the decision will have. Feminism needed to influence an entire generation of women with the "my body, my choice, my rights, it's only some clustered cells" thinking before they were able to win a case like the socially devastating Roe vs. Wade decision which started this whole ugly mess rolling.
If life does not start until the child draws his first breath outside of the womb, then the feminists are correct and it is nothing more than a clustered group of cells that mean nothing and we can do as we wish. The whole gamut; abortion, stem cell harvesting, cloning for transplant organs etc.
However, if life starts before then, from the moment the two zygotes meet, or even from the moment a child is quick in the womb, then you have done an incredibly evil thing. You have taken the life of another. Taken the life of something that could not protect itself. Taken the life of a person with no choice or voice in the matter. Taken the life of an innocent child.
Feminists watch and try to influence the outcomes of such trials as the Scott and Laci Peterson case. If they try Scott for a double murder, then they have said that the unborn child was a human, due all of the protection and rights as any other human. Feminists and modern medicine cannot have this precedent set. It starts the ball rolling in the other direction. It would imply that abortion is in fact the murder of another human. Creating a cloned life to destroy it for the organs is murder for profit as is harvesting stem cells. All of the possible gains would be outweighed by the atrocity. We should already understand that the ends does not justify the means. That type of thinking, taken to it's logical conclusion, leads to things like the holocaust.
In my opinion, we already are in the midst of a holocaust.
Quality of life should never replace the sanctity of life.
I feel for you, BQ, for the Planned Parenthood thing. Your story isn't an isolated one. For my part I wish that all of them would just burn to the ground.
(I think this is the point where I jump off my soapbox, into a flame retardant suit and jump into the nearest bunker.)
(Bring it! My skin is a thick as it comes.)
