Kenbod wrote:As for those who suggest that those against abortion should not have them shows a misunderstanding of their pro-life neighbors. The issue for the movement is that a) those fetuses are (absolutely) alive: they grow, move, and breathe and b) said fetuses are (absolutely) human. On these 2 points there is no scientific debate. The question, then, is which living humans should have rights worthy of protecting.
The issue is keenly similar to slavery in that slaves were both alive and human, but, somehow, less so.
I dismiss the notion that one should be able to abort and discard a viable human life "on demand". I cannot make sense of the situation where a woman could be on her way to having a late-term abortion when she is hit by a DWI driver. She is rushed to the hospital where a baby is born (alive) but succumbs to the injuries. The driver, absolutely, is charged with homicide. Stranger things happen.
But all of this is off the big picture. The big picture is that with widespread acceptance of abortion as an option out of an undesired pregnancy, there has been a clear erosion of the value of human life.
Like slavery, history will not be kind to that reality. There are simply too many options available.
I have always found it incongruous that the party that embraces science, nearly to the point of worship, chooses to ignore it when it inconveniences them or is an obstacle to their most wanton political goals. Obviously, individual human life begins sometime between conception and birth. Science can determine when, but no one in science is clamoring for that discovery. Aquinas was probably close in his assessment of when life begins, and there may be a window of opportunity for the abortion of a "mass of cells" that does not yet represent a protected individual human life. But will we ever know based in science to settle the issue? No, the dems won't allow such a thing, it is heretical to the greater religion of political power.
Also incongruous with Democratic party belief is that the human life in utero is without rights if the mother so chooses
, while the law in criminal cases defines the fetus as an individual. Further, the notion that the woman "owns" the fetus like chattel is odd for a party that claims that "it takes a village to raise a child". Does that philosophy not imply shared ownership of responsibility? It took two people to create the child and certainly the mother and the law would claim the father owns half the responsibility after birth, at least in a civil society. On this issue, the "party of logic, reason, and virtue" is quite vacant.
What is truly disappointing is that there are so many options for the avoidance of this type of misfortune yet the statistics remain high. Quite frankly I would like to see abortion remain available to all, respecting safety and free will, to satisfy the left, but only if, to satisfy the right, all those seeking abortions are pre-counseled about all available options for the mother and baby along with a full and graphic presention of the event and the consequences for all. Given that the left places such a high value on education, this should not be asking too much.
Abortion, as an accepted method of birth control, vacates all social virtue.