Greetings all!
This week’s title is inspired as part of a quote
from a friend of mine. We were discussing how both political parties in America
very much like to focus on certain population demographics during the election
season, and why we believe this is damaging to our constitutional republic as a
whole. What she said struck me as unabashedly true: “Democracy is not a tetris
game. People should be treated as people, not as voting blocs which can be used
for political gain.” I decided to take a note from her idea, and begin a
mini-event on my blog. Both this week’s post and next’s week’s will focus on
women’s issues, while simultaneously making sure to treat the topics as
subjects that affect all of us rather than just some. This is especially true
since women make up more than half of all American people today. This may even
spill over into a third week, if you all demand it. As you’ll likely notice,
this week’s quote is from Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for the
presidency whom I support. The quote is not in full, although this is only
because blogger limits that space to under 500 characters, so sorry for that.
Moving on, this week I approach a subject which
lights fires in everyone’s eyes the moment I say it, regardless of political
affiliation: abortion. It’s a contentious issue ever since the 1972 Supreme
Court case Roe v. Wade essentially
made abortions legal up until around 28 weeks into the pregnancy. Since then,
some states have chosen to embrace such a ruling and live with the limits,
while others have rejected it and tried to limit such abilities on the part of
women to get abortions. This is mostly based upon how each of us defines a
normal, human life. It also depends upon what time we consider such a life to
have started in earnest. The trouble is, there is no absolute and definitive
scientific legal standard applied to the federal level which could shut out all
the lesser opinions. As such, the debate still rages on today. Roe may have set the limit at 28 weeks,
but the Court’s ruling also admitted that such a limit could extend backwards
to even 24 weeks, or rather whenever a life was “viable”, meaning the child
could survive absent of the mother, albeit with machines attached. All of these
standards are still questioned, even by me, although not likely in the same
direction as many of my readers.
I’ll take a look first at the scientific side of
this debate. Because a “viable” life is a fairly broad term under the ruling,
especially due to increases in technology and knowledge that we have gained
since then, we must learn to define at what time we should consider that life
to have started. A normal human life is termed as being a person that can live
independently and can perform all normal human bodily processes. I would like
to qualify this definition is a generalized scientific one, and not a legal
definition, as no such definition exists within the context of federal law.
However, it is the only legitimate definition we can use for now that is not
tinged with political opinion. The first point of the definition specifies that
a normal human must be able to live independent of another being, and that its
bodily processes must be accounted for solely by its own systems. The second
point specifies that all capabilities of human function must be accounted for,
including things such as thought, instinct, sensory responses, digestion, etc. If
you can’t tell by now, this definition which I use points towards normal human
life beginning at birth. At that point, the human becomes independent of its
food source (the mother) and begins to live its own life. It is also capable of
all normal human functions (although complex thoughts are mostly restricted
until later, of course). By this definition, that fetus is not truly alive
until it is born, and therefore an abortion should be legal at all points of
the pregnancy. Couldn’t this possibly lead to abortions the day before children
are born? It certainly could, although I would think that any woman pregnant
for that long would’ve likely already chosen to keep the child. Do I agree with
this definition? For the most part, the answer is yes. A fetus certainly cannot
think at all, and does not experience extinct or nerve responses in quite the
same ways as we do. The fetus’s food and blood interchange with the mother, and
normal humans do neither of these things (I would hope). Would I allow an
abortion a day before the birth? Yes, as it is not my personal decision to
make, although I would certainly question such a woman as to whether she is
acting rashly in the face of sudden life changes. However, I still would not
stop her from making that choice.
This leads me into the second portion of my debate:
the civil rights and religious issues tied up within abortion. Roe ruled that abortion is part of a
legal right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th
Amendment and is therefore protected by the Constitution. However, a
significant portion of the population believes that abortion should be further
restricted or abolished entirely. The first and foremost reason cited for such
proposals is due to a differing definition of when life starts; a surprising
amount of Americans believe life starts at conception. Now this definition is
one I strongly oppose. Take a look here, to see what conception looks like: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Sperm-egg.jpg.
It is a simple picture of what a zygote would look like the instant that sperm
combines with that egg. Once that happens, under the “life starts at conception”
definition, that zygote could feel highly threatened and kill its mother with a
gun as self-defense in Florida. Oh wait, that can’t actually happen because a
fetus can’t hold a gun, or feel threatened, or claim self-defense in a court of
law. Why guarantee the right to bear arms to a cluster of cells which does not
even possess a brain yet? This functions under the same reasoning we do not
allow minors the right to vote; we are not yet considered mature enough for the
responsibility of such rights. A zygote is not mature enough for such rights as
freedom of assembly or freedom from double jeopardy, and therefore should not
be accorded those rights. A reason many claim that life begins at conception is
due to religion; however, this point is moot because as soon as religious
standards are brought into the debate, they can be shut out in the same
instant. Because the 1st Amendment guarantees separation of church
and state, the federal government cannot appropriate laws which respect one
religion over another or which promote any religion. As such, the government
cannot create a standard of when life begins based upon religious doctrine of
any kind; neither Christian nor any other religious definition may be used
without violating the 1st Amendment.
And now, my final point. I should not have any say
over whether a woman has an abortion or not. It is the personal decision of each
and every pregnant woman whether to have an abortion or not, and if so when
they plan to do so. A woman is a mature being with all the rights given to her
by the Constitution and the government, and as such she has domain over her
personal affairs. Unless that woman is a minor (which I would sincerely hope
they are not), they have full control over whether they have a child or not. No
person or group should be able to restrict that choice legally, unless they are
the parents/legal guardians of a pregnant minor. Even in such a case, the young
woman should have more than enough say over what happens to her. It is not our
right and nor is it legal for us to take away such a choice, contentious as it
may be, as it is not our choice to make. We don’t know what these women are
going through, and why they may or may not choose to have an abortion. But
whether we like it or not, we must respect that choice and cast off any
illusion of control we may have.
That is all for this week, and I hope I’ve made my
points cogent and easy to understand. If you have questions or comments of any
kind, I encourage you to post them right here for me to see and respond to. If
you would prefer other means of communication, I would suggest my email at zerospintop@live.com. I can also be
contacted through Facebook, Twitter (@KnoFearMLP), DeviantArt, Google+, and
Steam (once again, KnoFearMLP instead of KnoFear). Good night, and this is
KnoFear, signing off.
No comments:
Post a Comment