Abortion-Part Two

As promised, here’s my ponderings on the whole abortion thing. I said in my previous entry on the topic that I really don’t care one way or the other on the whole issue, which I don’t. It does seem to me that many people who are concerned about whether abortions are right or wrong, and should be legal or illegal, have failed to satisfactorily answer the two questions that the issue pivots on.

First, what is it that makes a person “alive” or possess “life.” Second, when does that become present in an organism which if allowed to fully develop will become a human being.

I’m aware that both sides have stated opinions that they would use to answer both of these questions, but I really don’t think there is much proof to back up the opinions of either side.

The most common stance of Pro-Lifer’s (at least from what I’ve heard) is that “life” begins at conception. According to them, the moment that the genetic material in a sperm and an egg merge and the cell splits into two, that is a developing human being who is worth the same protection as the mother carrying it.

The most common stance of Pro-Choicer’s (at least from what I’ve heard) is that “life” occurs when a child is born, or when it is near-term if the mother wants it. According to them, what inside of a woman up until that time is simply a growing mass of cells which are part of a woman’s body, much like a cancerous tumor.

There are many variations of both of these, and some opinions totally unlike them, but these are the two sides I’ve heard the most, and they’re the ones I’ve been thinking about.

The problem I have with the Pro-Lifer’s position of life beginning at conception is that it is very hard to give a tiny mass of cells the same value as a person who has been born.

Every day, each person on earth loses thousands and thousands of cells from their body, yet this doesn’t affect how “alive” they are. We don’t have a part of us that exists somewhere in between life and death simply because some of our cells die off. It seems that although cells may exhibit the characteristics of being alive, they don’t individually possess whatever it is that gives a person “life.” Thus, I don’t think that a small mass of cells that will eventually turn into a person, if allowed to grow, is “alive” simply because of that fact.

The problem I have with Pro-Choicer’s view is that babies that are born prematurely can be kept alive and be allowed to develop into a child even if they are born at the same stage that some abortions are carried out.

I’ve heard a few people argue that it isn’t truly a child and isn’t truly “alive” because it cannot survive outside of the mother. So, because it is dependant on the mother it is actually considered a part of the mother.

If the reason that it isn’t “alive” though is because it can’t survive without the mother’s help, does that mean that premature babies who are born but can’t survive without the help of machines aren’t entirely “alive?” Or are old people or those who have been seriously injured and depend on machines to keep them going somehow less “alive” because they wouldn’t be able to survive on their own?

One thing I’ve found rather strange is how women are allowed to get abortions, yet in cases where women are assaulted or killed while pregnant and the fetus/child/whatever is lost (the Lacy Peterson case is a good example) the perpetrator can be charged with murder because of the effect of their action.

If a fetus/child/whatever truly isn’t “alive” and isn’t a “real” human until it is born, then no one should be able to be charged with murder if one of those “dies” as a result of their criminal actions. Then again, if it is possible for someone to be charged with murder because they “kill” a fetus/child/whatever in their attack of the mother, then abortion should never be legal. If people think that the only thing that makes a fetus/child/whatever “alive” is whether or not it is wanted, they’re rather arrogant and stupid.

To jump a little bit here, I’ve heard that if abortion is made illegal that many women will die in “back alleys” from “coathanger abortions.” Due to how quick people are to pop that one out (no pun intended) when anyone says anything even remotely threatening to having full abortionary “rights,” I think it’s more of a cliché than something that society would really have to worry about.

I really have no answers to the questions I posed at the beginning of this, and I have yet to meet anyone who does. As I said though, I don’t see how people can make a decision on this topic either way without having those answers (if they do, they are presuming quite a bit). Maybe it would be a good idea to spend some money and figure those out.

As I’ve said in many previous entries, I think it’s always selfish to have or conceive children. But since very few people agree with me, I think I have a solution that would satisfy both sides of this argument, because it would eliminate the need for abortions to ever occur.

My plan is that the government would form a massive “Federal Fertility Bureau” (or something like that). Everyone would be required by law to get their eggs or sperm harvested and stored in this system somewhere, and then would be sterilized. Then when a couple is prepared to have children, they can go to the Bureau and the woman can get impregnated. That way, there wouldn’t be unwanted pregnancies, no women would be getting pregnant from being raped, people could screw all they wanted and only have to worry about STD’s, and both sides could go and find a different issue to bitch at each other about.

*
“I’m ethereal, my children are legion, serial
They stick to my skin like beloved cysts
I tear away with my nails and teeth and fists
Touch the hands of inverted saints
Follow my heart through the threaded pain
Callow man is a sentinel screaming
I see the future; the future is bleeding
*
Everywhere you look it’s like they know
Their fingerprints are hidden by CONTROL
This is where the line is drawn, see?
YOU CAN’T TAKE MY SOUL AWAY FROM ME.”
*
Slipknot…The New Abortion