The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Abortion. Irresolvable.

Some folks believe that every spermatazoum and every ovum should, by law, be given a fighting chance at coupling. These people believe that to "artificially" interfere with that chance is the equivalent of shedding innocent blood. They're marginalized, but can be significant when paired with the next couple of groups.

Another group believe that people can do whatever they want to interfere with the coupling of sperm and ova, but if they do manage the hookup, then it's God's will and to interfere with it then is the equivalent of shedding innocent blood. This group thinks it has a slightly stronger case because, Lord knows, it is very hard for sperm and ova as it is.

Some others believe that the crime of pregnancy termination (shedding of innocent blood) occurs at "quickening," which is a gray area.

Some believe that abortion should be legal up to the first trimester. Or the second. Or anytime.

I think a person owns his/her own body and all the microbes, bacteria, arms, legs, heart, lungs and feti dependent on it. God can implant souls anywhere He wants, right? It's a bad deal if a soul with only one chance gets implanted before the fetus into which it is implanted gets aborted, but God works His wonders in Mysterious ways.

I think that to interfere, by threat of publicly-funded deadly force, with the decision of ANYONE to do with their own property what they want, absent a quantifiable threat to those around them as a result, is unconscionable governmental intrusion.

The question is when the biological happenstance of two cells joining becomes a fact of "life." A reasonable question. We simply can't permit the intentional termination of a human life that has been delivered into the world. But can we permit the termination of a human life that could survive outside the womb, given our ability to raise infants delivered at about half the normal gestation period? That, unfortunately, isn't the argument.

Those who think that a soul, with only one chance at this great treat called human life, is created at or near the time of coupling of sperm and ova, and who think the termination thereof is "murder," ...well, they have no choice. They must campaign against, and reduce by whatever bureaucratic and criminal justice barriers they can enact, the taking of innocent "life." This assumes that the law recognizes the existence of a "soul." Which it does by implication.

So we have an irresolvable issue each side of which is defended emphatically by a significant constituency. It has resulted in legislatures, in South Dakota and nationally, largely filled with people conversant on two issues: abortion and the legislator's civilian occupation (if he/she ever had one).

Bones for the mob to scrabble over while the real crimes are done.

Anybody think things will get better in the near future?

1 comment:

repete said...

Are 'conservatives' more insistent upon a conservative government? or a government which supports their personal right-to-birth issues?'

It seems as if they would rather let liberal candidates win the elections instead of a conservative candidate with a pro-choice stance.

And yes it IS right-to-birth, not right to life because as soon as the fetus is born, the very same 'conservatives' bitch about paying food stamps and unemployment and anything else related to life (life, not birth) support.