The other day I was reading a mother’s thoughts on gun control. I can’t place a link because it was on another’s FB page. The lady was concise, thorough and stated very well her case for protecting society’s children – without a sense of argument or rancor. I was impressed, until about two-thirds down when she mentioned rights.
She understood gun owners would be giving up rights and she mentioned that she would not be willing to give up her right to an abortion. She spoke of a woman’s control of her body.
Oh, we agree on that. All women should have control over their own bodies – especially to the extent of preventing pregnancy. After that has passed, we argue over semantics - zygotes, fetus, pre-born, new-born.
In compiling my thoughts, I determined not to use Biblical references. Abortion supporters do not believe the Bible applies, therefore they will not respond to God’s word. Let me, instead, discuss the reality of science. It begins with DNA.
The creation of a zygote, the earliest developmental state of a fetus, requires DNA from two sources – half from the female (mother), half from the male (father.) Science does away with the words in parentheses and cloning may change the equation, but (as Wikipedia puts it): “A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development.” Please, remember that ‘unique’ part.
Once that DNA combination is established as human, the (zygote, fetus, pre-born, new born) becomes the most defenseless part of the human race. It will not change species as it develops, it will remain human. And it will remain unique.
Except for in vitro fertilization, the zygote is totally dependent upon the mother’s womb for nourishment and protection. Surrounded by and connected to a woman, this new human DNA is not hers. She may come to love and cherish it, but it is a unique life separate and apart from her own. It is created in combination with another.
The womb’s ability to feed and protect the zygote is matched by its ability to enlarge as this unique human grows. Its ability is matched by other species, but humanity is the only species that has developed methodologies to remove that unique individual, that most helpless of humans.
You see, the woman who wrote of her right to an abortion differs with me. She does not see this most helpless (zygote, fetus, pre-born, new born) as human. She – and half of America – sees only a mass of cells, synonymous with a mass of cancer cells that should be removed for the well-being of her body. It is not. It is surrounded and protected by her body, but the DNA defines it as unique, connected to but not part of her body.
Through recent years I’ve seen a society grow that divides humans into segments. Some of those segments may be tossed aside for the convenience of others. I see a society who segregates humans into “people who provide something I need” who can be kept, and those “non-humans who provide nothing for me” which can be destroyed. Previous societies made a different segregation, with similar results.
Bottom line – a large portion of our society no longer cares for these most helpless of humans. I grieve for that lost caring.
Yes, I also have scriptural and spiritual reasons for my grief – but isn’t it sufficient that an existing human society no longer protect humans?
I wonder if you would accept some words from a non-Christian, including the topic of using accurate terms. Thank you, first of all for not using the term "pro-abortion". Still, you opted for abortion supporter rather than "pro-choice", the term I prefer. Just semantics? Well, if I may explain my position. I personally find the idea of abortion repugnant. I couldn't do it, that's for sure. But the debate that rages politically is not really about approval of abortion, it is about the legality of it. There are many things that kill unborn and already born children that are quite legal. There are plenty of others that are illegal but happen anyway. What we cannot, must not do is create a brand new situation, or in fact a return of an old one, where desperate young women die as a result of seeking illegal abortions. Counsel them, yes, discourage them, by all means, but do not force them to return to the days of back street abortions.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed that many of the same people who are opposed to abortion, and wish to have it made illegal are the very same people who oppose efforts towards gun control. One of the main arguments against gun control is that criminals don't obey the law - they would still have guns. Quite so. But when these people wish to oppose the practice of abortion they look to the law to stop it. I find this to be a shortsighted view. It seems to assume that suddenly, if abortion becomes illegal, it will stop. No. It won't. A woman who resorts to abortion is not doing so on a whim. It is a difficult decision to make, and a horrible thing to go through.
Furthermore, some of those who oppose abortion also oppose birth control, or simply resent it being made available at somebody else's expense.
If we wish to stop abortion, we need to do several things, as a society. #1 is to make birth control freely and easily available to all women who want it, and yes that includes without parental consent for minors. We then need to offer support for women who do carry their child to term. Again, frequently the same people who vehemently oppose abortion, also oppose social support for mother and child. It is as if the moment the child is born, they no longer care about it.
So, yes, there is a great irony politically over these connected issues. It is far more complex than people not caring for the rights of the unborn child. Women and born children need care too.
Thank you for reading this.
Thank you, Melanie, for the penultimate paragraph. My words did not include a request for legislation to stop abortion but to view a society that defines throw-away humans. This is not an American social problem that can be changed by taking something of value from one person's pocket and supplying another with financial support to accomplish their desires. That is done in many countries with the result remaining that humans are destroyed.
DeleteFrankly, I cannot see the connection you mention in your last paragraph any more than I could see it in the article that prompted my blog.
As for semantics, I cannot discern a difference between the label "pro-choice" and "abortion supporter" any more than I see a difference between "pro-life" and "anti-abortion." Labels may change as 'newspeak' occurs, and I believe we'll soon see media applying even newer labels for these positions.
One request if you return - would you explain "There are many things that kill unborn and already born children that are quite legal"?