a reply to: OccamsRazor04
It's a fetus, not a person, if you believe that, no murder occurred.
That's where the real illogic comes in.
If it is a child once it exits the mother, then it is illogical to believe it is not a child the second before it exits the mother. To believe that
requires something that is akin to a belief in magic... life would have been created out of thin air. Further, it it is a child a second before it
exits the mother, is it also still a child two seconds prior to the exit? Three? A minute? An hour? We can extrapolate that far, far back as far as we
want and still there has to be this belief that somehow life popped into existence from nothing.
Science says different. Science says that it is alive and human not from the moment of conception, but even before that. The ovum is alive and a human
cell. The sperm is alive and a human cell. Life never starts because it never ends. Similarly, the ovum and the sperm are both human, as is the
zygote, the embryo, the fetus. Any other argument is simply ignorance.
The true issue is that there are two competing interests here: the life of a child (one can add the qualifier "potential" before that and still be
accurate) and the life of the mother. Which controls? I say the one with the greater interest. In all cases, an abortion is the ending of a human
life, but there are cases where that life threatens the life of the mother. In such cases, and only in such cases, the mother holds the advantage, as
she has more of a life at stake than the child. Inconvenience, however, should never be a cause to end a life.
The other side of this argument is that severe inconvenience, such as that which would accompany an unwanted birth to, say, a single mother for
example, can and will according to history lead to women performing dangerous procedures on themselves. Women during pregnancy are subject to bouts of
irrational thinking brought on by hormonal changes in their bodies. Any such attempt will likely either kill or seriously maim both the child and the
mother, which is certainly a situation to be avoided. Thus, outlawing abortion outright, while morally the correct thing to do in the short term,
would have devastating effects on society in the longer term.
That is why I have no issue with first-trimester abortions. The child may be human and alive, but does it have cognizant thought? Obviously an
unfertilized ovum and a sperm have no conscious thought that we can understand as such, so to place a single point in time as the moment the child is
conscious is no less a belief in magic than believing there is a particular point in time it achieves life. It is only logical to presume that
consciousness occurs as the nervous system develops over a range of time; indeed, a newborn child does not exhibit the level of consciousness of an
The issue to me comes down to the death of consciousness, and the best method of determining consciousness is the question of "can it feel pain?"
Obviously a late trimester child can feel pain, but it is highly unlikely that a first-trimester child can. In between, the reasonable assumption is
that the earlier an abortion occurs, the better.
There have been arguments raised about third trimester abortions should be legal in cases of rape and incest. Why? Did the mother forget the
conception until 9 months later? I hardly think so. Those cases should be easy: have the abortion within two weeks of learning one is pregnant. That
may allow for some second trimester abortions, but at least the act is performed with as little pain to the child as is possible.
There have also been statements about "partial birth abortions" being illegal; this is true, but with a caveat. "Partial birth abortion" is not a
medical term; it is a political term for "dilation and extraction," where the child is removed through the cervix after dilation is induced...
essentially, the child is removed as though it were being born and killed in transit. that is not exactly what the law says is illegal. According to
US Code, it is illegal to perform any operation which is expected or likely to result in death to the child before one of two things happen: the
child's head is entirely outside the mother, or in the case of a breach the child's navel is outside of the mother. The child may legally be killed
by any method desired before that point.
There are organizations which will undertake this procedure.
The real problem with this entire issue, though, is the Roe v. Wade decision. There are those who apparently, based on their continuous cheerleading
for anything that will further abortion, hate children. I suspect many of those people actually hate men in general; killing a man's child is
certainly an act worthy of being classified as revenge. They claim that it is "their body" but ignore the fact that the child is not their property,
as well as ignore the fact that there are legal restrictions on all people that prohibit certain thing done to or with their bodies. They cling to Roe
v. Wade and have used it to promote their illogical positions, even going so far as to claim that men should be silenced.
I believe they want to sincerely believe that men do not care for children the way they do... which is an outright lie, evidenced by the fact it is
they who wish to destroy unborn children.
For that reason, and because of their own abuse of it, Roe v. Wade must