Funny Valentine's Day Poems to Give Your Kids
Modamily Site Helps You Find Someone to Have a Baby With
Perfect Chocolate-Covered Strawberries
‘No Child Left Behind’ Screeches to a Halt
Brave Girl Won't Let Rare Disease Steal Her Childhood (VIDEO)
Pink Ribbons Hide the Real Truth About Breast Cancer
Would You Wear These Fang Shoes?!
Mom Delivers 15.5 Pound Baby Boy (VIDEO)
Heart Cookie Pops Perfect for Valentine's Day
Obama's Marshmallow Fight at the White House (VIDEO)
7 Things You Can Do Right Now to Prevent Cancer
Beyonce Trademarks 'Blue Ivy' & Starts a Celebrity Trend
5 Great Gifts for Your Techie Valentine
Angelina & Brad Are Letting Maddox Do What?!
Should the Department of Education Be Abolished?
I am pro-choice. I am also pro-life. I know that on the surface, these two things don't seem to be able to coexist, so let me clarify. I am pro-choice to that extent that a person should have the ability to choose how he or she acts, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.
I cannot steal, because it takes away another person's right to own property. I am pro-life because abortion takes away a human being's most basic right of all -- the right to life.
I feel confident that most people in the United States agree that people not convicted of heinous crimes don't deserve to have their lives cut short. The end of a life is tragic, and the premature ending of one is even sadder. The death of a child? Well, has anyone ever gotten through My Girl without at least half a box of tissues?
Yet somehow, abortion rights supporters have misled many people to believe that a fetus isn't a human being. Dead babies are sad, yet dead unborn babies are to be worn like a badge of honor.
I read two stories on The Stir this week that made me ponder why more people don't ponder more when that right to life begins.
The first story was the tragic tale of a newborn baby flushed down an airplane toilet. The second was a review of the TV show Friday Night Lights, in which a teenage girl gets herself pregnant by choosing to have sex, and then decides to have an abortion rather than facing the challenges God gives her as a direct result of her own actions.
The problem with abortion is that it's impossible to figure out where the line of life is.
A baby flushed down the toilet is a tragedy, yet a baby sucked out of the womb with a vacuum and thrown into a medical waste bag is a right? Why? What's the difference? Time is the only thing I can figure out. Therefore, abortion must be age discrimination.
Why is it that an abortion at twelve weeks is OK, but flushing a newborn down the toilet is deplorable? Does the baby have to take a breath for him or her to be a real human being? What's the difference between a newborn who just inhaled a first breath and one that hasn't yet? What's the difference between a newborn an hour before birth and a day before birth? What's the difference between a nine-month fetus and an eight-month fetus? Where is the line?
You can go all the way back down to Day One of pregnancy and never find that line. Yet many advocates of abortion will say that there is a big difference between a twelve-week fetus and a forty-week fetus. OK, I'm listening. Where is the line?
Where does that child make such a tremendous, instantaneous leap in advancement that we can actually start to consider him or her a human being?
The only place I can see that happening is conception.
Comments (19)
Very thought provoking article! It took guts to write it!
Now we're going to see dozens of comments full of rationalizations about why abortion is the responsible choice, the kind choice, the only choice (which makes no sense if you think about it), bla bla bla.
Fact is, those who freely make that choice are really saying "I don't care about this other person. I care more about myself right now and that's that." In fact, Roe v. Wade says the same thing. It doesn't say the fetus isn't a person or doesn't have rights. It says that up to a point, the mom's rights trump the baby's rights. "We care more about the mom's wants and that's that." So let's call it what it is.
Those making this "choice" aren't always the mothers of those babies. Often they are the fathers, the grandparents, or others who have the ability to coerce the mother into doing something against her instincts and desires. This makes abortion a crime against multiple people, including people who are unquestionably cognizant of the harm done. So that's the other huge problem with abortion.
I am pro-choice and pro-life too. I believe every woman should have the choice to do whatever she feels is right for her, but I would never consider it for myself. I draw the line about when the fetus should have rights is when it's life can be sustained outside of the womb. Before that point there is no use giving the fetus it's own rights because it cannot live without being part of the mother.
I always find it so appalling that the qualifier for being dead is when you go brain dead, and yet when brain activity begins, babies still aren't considered alive. This double-standard merely exists to appease the pro-abortion community. But asserting that someone with their own unique genetic code, brain activity and a heart beat isn't a human until it is convenient is insulting. Ask anyone who has suffered a miscarriage no matter how early in the pregnancy. No one says they "lost the fetus", they say they "lost the baby". Why? Because from the moment of conception it is a baby. That is, unless one wants to conviently leave out the facts in order to support throwing out human beings as if they were garbage. Doubt PETA would be okay with people treating animals the way humans treat a "fetus". People have plenty of choices. Murdering their children legally should never be one of them. What an incredibly selfish and horrific act.
"Before that point there is no use giving the fetus it's own rights because it cannot live without being part of the mother." - Javi05Eli07
I'm curious...I've heard this stated and I'm wondering how a newly born baby CAN live without her/his mother (or other adultish guardian)...
...unless you refer to the date of 'viability' i.e. when a baby has developed enough to live (still with outside help) outside of the womb.
Which is a moving target as neo-natal technology increases and the date of viability is pushed back earller and earlier.
Which to me means that you label the 'state' of the baby (the transition of fetus to baby in your eyes) based upon a level of current available technology.
Which would imply that it would also be different depending on which hospital you went to as I'm sure each neo-natal care unit has a varying level of 'viability' based on their equipment and personnel...or does it work that the earliest anywhere applies everywhere?
Cole, I mean viability. As of right now I go with the earliest a baby has been born and lived, so somewhere around 22-24 weeks. As medical advances are made and baby can survive earlier, then that is when I will go by.
Thank you, Jenny! There are so many double standards employed with the pro-choice/pro-abortion argument that I can't stand it! It just reinforces my own belief that life begins at conception, and to willfully take that life away is wrong! I understand that there are a very few instances where it is medically necessary, especially with an ectopic pregnancy, but I feel that we have become so PC with abortion that it is almost an acceptable form of birth control! IMO it is rarely necessary, and I think it should only be done in a hospital on the advice of 2 or more doctors. Not at a clinic where you can go in and say, well, I didn't think this would happen, and I'm not ready!
The difference between a newborn and a 12 week old fetus is that a 12 week old fetus is not viable. Ultimately, It is the mother's choice whether she wants to serve as the fetus's life support or not.
The majority or abortions occur during the first trimester. Embryos and fetuses can not feel pain up until about 25 weeks.
In conclusion, a 12 week old fetus can not feel pain, can not think, and can not live without its host (the mother), therefore the woman can do whatever she pleases to HER body. Once the fetus becomes a physically independent being, it is worthy of rights.
Still think abortion is such a heinous crime? How about you go vegetarian? So let me get this straight... Its OK to eat meat which comes from a tortured animal that suffers, but its NOT ok to have an abortion when the fetus can not feel anything at all? How can anyone have this logic? Animals have feelings, both emotional and physical, but fetuses do not. So what is your excuse for eating meat?
I do not think you can compare human life to animals. Yes, animals feel pain and have feelings in the sense that they can feel things, but they do not have the same capacity that a human does to think and feel. Having said that, I believe that animals should be treated humanely (huh, funny that word seems to stem from the word "human")...but this is all tangential to the actual article.
Abortion is murder - something that is living is killed. Regardless of whether the baby can live outside of his/her mother at that particular point is irrelevant. The baby has a heartbeat - therefore, it is alive. No, his/her brain is not fully developed but its not fully developed at birth, either.
Having had two children and seen and heard their heartbeats as early as 8 weeks pregnant, I can't imagine how anyone could think that it would not be murder to kill them, and murder is not legal. Unless you call it abortion, apparently.
A newborn is not "viable" either. Neither is a 12-year-old severely disabled child. Neither is an elderly disabled parent. They all need some human to physically provide all of their sustenance. Should a parent / guardian be allowed to cut off any of the above just because they don't feel like shouldering the burden of keeping them alive? Maybe there should be a "neediness scale" and the people who fall above a certain line should be stripped of all their rights, their fate left entirely to whoever happens to be most physically involved with them.
In fact, even if you believe that helpless and hopeless people should be exterminated, this still doesn't fit an unborn baby. Because prior to what some call "viability," in most cases, the baby doesn't need the mother to do ANYTHING in order to reach viability. All the mother has to do is go about her normal business, and that baby will grow and thrive. Most moms' heavy lifting doesn't begin until well after the child is "viable." So if you have a tree growing in your yard, with nothing apparently wrong with it, would you call it non-viable and cut it down, because it couldn't live without being rooted in the ground? That's the kind of logic the pro-abortion lobby argues.
Viability is a convenient excuse, but it's a crock.