posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 01:40 PM
What a coincidence. I just wrote a thread on this subject a few days ago, I pop in here and here it is again. There must be a common wave length
going on that we're all picking up on.
I'm reposting portions of my original thread and hope that it does not turn into the slug fest that it did originally.
It has been argued that there is no difference between passive euthanasia of the sickly senescent and the abortion of unborn fetuses. This is an error
in logic. To prevent the inevitable death (by natural causes in a chronically ill invalid) is vastly different than to prevent the inevitability of
birth (or continuing of life) of an unborn child.
In the first scenario, life has occurred, gone through it's stages and reached it's conclusion-dilapidation of the body machine. Through the
miracles of modern science, the process of the eventually inevitable dilapidation can be postponed; delayed. This is a temporary measure that will
afford the loved ones of the dying person time in which to "come to terms" (or accept) the inevitability of their loved ones dying. It will afford
the dying person time to take care of unfinished business and/or accept their own dying. It is out of respect and value of life that these
death-postponing measures are utilized.
In the second scenario, no illness (usually) is found (or even looked for). There is a time factor for performing the active euthanasia (1st
trimester) so that death must be calculated and carried out without consideration of the pregnant woman's time needed for grief acceptance. And what
can be said of the fetus? Unlike the chronically ill, the fetus is not afforded the time necessary to adjust to the idea of it's death or to take
care of unfinished business. Indeed, the "unfinished business" of an unborn child is the living of life itself.
It is argued that the unborn can have no thoughts; either about it's dying or it's living. How arrogant! How presumptuous! While it is true that one
which has yet to learn language and therefore is not yet able to vocalize it's perceptions and can not give us insight into the workings of it's
mind; it is erroneous to assume that an undeveloped life form HAS no perceptions/cognitions (as yet non verbalized).
Do not even cockroaches run from the flyswatter? Do not even bacteria attempt to swim away from bactericidal agents placed on the augur plates? A
fetus, unlike the occasionally lucky cockroach or bacteria, has no chance of escape. We kill our unborn children with as little regard as if we were
stepping on a bug. Imminent death in NOT inevitable for the unborn as it is in the chronically ill or fatally wounded. Abortion, unlike passive
euthanasia is performed out of the deepest LACK of respect and value of life.
It is argued that abortion is to prefer, respect and value the life of the pregnant woman more than the life of her inconveniently developing child.
The Nazis also preferred the life of Aryans over the life of Hebrews but they were still regarded as murderers and deadly force was used against such
murderers to prevent their continued life-stealing activities. It may be that the pregnant life would be inconvenienced or even made more difficult by
the arrival of an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. No doubt, life was difficult in the extreme for our forebears, yet out of love for life, zest of
living, respect for life, they IMPROVED their conditions in order to OVERCOME the hardships of their life. By so doing, they improved the standard of
living conditions for us all. They would doubtless scoff to hear this generation whining about the hardships of life while taking a frozen pizza out
of the freezer, popping it in the microwave and setting down in front of the TV in an air-conditioned, electrically lighted house to eat it.
Our forebears invented these modern conveniences so that they, as well as their children (us), might enjoy life more fully. Yes, working in a field
12+ hours a day and raising 14 children led to an average lifespan of 40 years; however, we do not have that consideration, thanks to their
life-affirming contributions. This generation, with it's drive-by shootings, et al, concedes by it's lifestyle that life is of no value (or little
value) and so would rather destroy any potentially inconvenient lifeforms than overcome the hardships imposed by them.
All actions have consequences. One of the (many) consequences of engaging in sex is the possibility of pregnancy. Is it unreasonable to expect people
to accept the consequences of their actions by accepting responsibility for their actions? Is it reasonable to expect another to serve as scapegoat
for the consequences of my actions? By killing our unborn children we offer up the "products of conception" as substitute scapegoats for dodging our
It is unpopular to speak of, much less insist upon, personal responsibility and consequences of actions to this generation. Truth has never been
popular with the masses. Nevertheless, reality can not be denied: all actions have consequences. All that remains to be said of that point is to ask
ourselves (individually, as well as a collective society), do we rise above the tragedy of our self-imposed mistakes, show ourselves to be
triumphantly "human" and DEAL with our problems? Are we a superior species able and worthy to dominate this planet or are we just another
animalistic life form that is unable to even obey the laws of nature and instead serves as a parasite by not caring for other life forms as long as
"we get ours"?
Such an attitude is self-defeating in the long run. It is extremely short-sighted. Shall we become a people like those in the movie, Logan's Run?
Only the young, healthy, beautiful people are allowed to work and live while the the sick forfeit their lives at a certain age? All actions have
consequences. If you think that the abortion issue has no consequences for you personally because you have never birthed or sired children, think it
through a little more thoroughly.
It is argued that we can not know when life begins and are therefore justified in snuffing it out before it becomes problematic for us. A few years
ago we could not detect a fetal heartbeat in less than 8 week. Now we can detect is at 40 days (6 weeks). Were those babies hearts not beating at 6
weeks or were we just unable to detect their signs of life? Do we know for certain that in a few more years we will not be able to detect fetal heart
beat even sooner?
Science, out of the deepest regard for life, has invented methods and equipment for preserving and advancing life. Signs of life-like activity are
apparent at the moment of conception when the zygote (fertilized egg) begins it's cell replication. Once the sperm and egg are united, only active
intervention will stop the natural course of events.
There are those in intensive care units in hospitals across the country who neither have an independently beating heart or a functioning brain, yet we
spend a great deal of time, money and effort to make sure they stay "alive". What hypocrisy! Outside intervention is required to keep those on life
support alive whereas the only "active" intervention required to keep the fetus alive is that the pregnant woman keep herself alive.
Life and quality of life are used interchangeably in the abortion argument. They are NOT synonymous. If your quality of life is diminished by a
drunken driver crashing into your vehicle leaving you paralyzed from the waist down, should someone else determine that your life is no longer worth
living and relieve you of it? If parents of a grown, adult child now have to care for that child and provide his daily needs due to that same
scenario, should they be allowed to determine that you are too "inconvenient" to live? Who determines who will live? Who decides whom the
determiners will be? Where does it stop?
If you become unable to work this year due to illness, injury (both recoverable) or downsizing by your employer and my taxes are increased to pay your
unemployment or rising medical costs, you have become "inconvenient" to me. Should you die for this? According to the euphemistically named
"pro-choice" logic, you should indeed die so that I am not further inconvenienced by you or your demands on my time, money or effort.
Where there's life, there's hope. As long as one is alive and continues to exist, there's always the hope that the quality of life can be improved.
This goal of improving the quality of life can be actively pursued as long as one is alive and active to do so. Before the advent of insulin the
quality of life for diabetics was limited to their next (inevitable) ketoacidotic coma. Before gas heaters or central heat "quality of life" was
restricted to those who were strong enough to chop and haul wood.
As long as you're alive you have choices for altering your situation, however dire; when you're dead, you don't. So much for "pro choice".
The pro choice advocates extend choices of potential improvement in quality of life to one (the pregnant female) at the expense of life itself from
another (the unborn child). Incidentally, what choices do you really have when you walk into an abortion clinic? The abortionists make money (lots of
it) by your decision to have an abortion. The pro life counseling centers are often made up of volunteers who obtain no material gain by your
decision, whether that decision turns out to be abortion or carrying to term.
If your actions toward unborn children reveal you to be afraid of death-whether it be death of a career, death of an era, death of a relationship,
etc., at least be honest about it and quit trying to convince us (and yourself) that it's because you love the life of the pregnant woman so much
you're willing to kill to preserve it intact. That is not love of life, but fear of death.
There are those who contend that we are justified in condoning abortion because we condone capital punishment. (to be continued)