Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Definitions Mean Something

The Missouri Mess has caused me to think again about the abortion issue, and some of the problems with any position held, whether Pro-Life or Pro- Abortion.

Lets start at the beginning. Abortion was not created by the Supreme Court in 1973; abortion on demand was legalized. Prior to his point an abortion could be had, but there was a respect for life involved. A certain morality was involved between the Doctor and the patient, always considering the life of the mother and the life of the baby.

Back Alley abortions were illegal and dangerous. Very desperate women sought out these illegal providers, when a baby wasn't a a threat, but an inconvenience.

All of that changed in 1973 when abortion on demand became legal. Morally the country was torn apart, as a significant portion of the country- at least 50%- still considers the killing of a child a sin and a crime.

As a libertarian, I agree with the Pro-Abortion crowd one issue. Your body belongs to you alone. It is your decision what to do to and with your body.

Where we part ways is when the decision about creating a child is made. When you, as a women, decide to participate in an act that could lead to procreation, you have made the decision about whether or not you want a child. If a child is created, any decision made after that point has to include the life of the child; a separate and distinct, but dependent individual.

Science is somewhat vague on the creation of life for some reason. Each developmental stage of the child is called by a different name. Abortion relies on the child not being called a baby in order to make the operation palatable. Your not killing a child, your removing a blastocyst; a zygote. They argue that the "growth" is not human.

I would argue that from the moment of conception the child is human. It would be physically impossible for the joining of human sperm and egg to become a chicken. So, by default it has to be human. That human, no matter how small, is entitled to all of the legal protection of any other human.

I have been told that the hardest thing in the world is to bury a child. I hope I never find out how difficult. I also cannot imagine how had it would be to make the decision to kill my child. The situation would need to be extreme, and the choice would be saving the life of my wife or saving the life of child. I can't imagine killing one of my children out of convenience.

And yet, some women seem to be able to do so on a daily basis. They apparently do not believe that they are killing a child; their child,

I am sure it is that point right there that creates the difference between the two sides. One side cannot believe the zygote is a child, and the other side cannot conceive of a situation where it would not be.

The biggest crisis for the Pro-Life side is the rape and incest situations. The woman in this case has not made a decision; the issue has been forced on her.

And here is where I think Todd Akin got in trouble. Men recognize a legitimate rape; one where a man has legitimately forced himself on an unwilling woman. Unfortunately rape has been devolved down to the woman deciding a few days later that was at the time consensual sex is now a rape.

I have never been involved with a rape of any sort in any manner. but I do have a little legal training. Any act has to have set parameters in order to define the act. If 4 conditions form an act, then having only 3 of those conditions means you do not have an act. When rape required a non-consensual act, and that act was immediately reported, rape was easily defined. But when a rape is reported a month later, and only because a pregnancy has developed, the crime of rape has been cheapened.

For instance, the whole idea of date rape. The idea of rape denotes a non-consensual sex act. It doesn't matter if the women knows her attacker, or does not, if she has been the victim of a non-consensual sex act, she was raped. But if it takes here several days to decide the act was non-consensual? I'm sorry, maybe I don't understand rape. I imagine it as a violent act; a definitive violation. For context I would compare it to being punched. It doesn't take several days to realize I was punched; I am immediately aware.

Again, I have never been through a rape. I also don't claim to understand the psychology behind how the act would affect a woman.

But I also cannot imagine under going the violation of a rape and not wanting to exact all of the legal revenge I could.and that definitely would include a police report; particularly if I knew exactly who the attacker was.

Personally I think technology has created a solution for us to requirement for the rape abortion exclusion; the Morning After Pill. One can be administered to the victim as a part of the rape crisis kit.

I really don't expect the abortion issue to disappear until one side or the other dwindles down to less than 25% of the population. Currently the Pro-Life side is gaining adherents, while the Pro-Abortion side is dwindling. It's easy to see why; which parent do you think would be more likely to carry a baby to term?

No comments: