Terry wrote:real life wrote: Is the unborn worthy of protection 1 minute before birth?
How about two minutes?
At whatever point you decide that the right to life should be inviolate, then you must ask yourself: What about just prior to this arbitrary point that has been chosen? Why is the unborn not worthy of protection 1 minute, or 1 hour prior to the time that has been chosen?
I can well understand a thoughtful person concluding, "I just am not sure when the unborn is alive or when it is human. It is not clear at all when this takes place."
To this I must ask: Shouldn't the benefit of the doubt go to the unborn? If we are to err, should we not err on the side of life?
Or as another has put it more bluntly: You wouldn't bury a body unless you were sure it was dead, would you?
If then you are not sure if the unborn is alive or not, should we not proceed as if she MAY indeed be alive and not callously assume that there is no human life there, thus assuring death?
Life is a process, not a point. Just like all other vertibrates, the human embryo gradually grows a heart, brain and all of the other organs and systems and eventually the blob of undifferentiated cells becomes a human being. We do know quite a bit about the process, and one of the things we know is that the fetal brain does not develop to the point where awareness
might be possible until at least 24 weeks gestation.
After that point (which coincidentally occurs about the same time as viability), the developing human life does have some legal protection. But if a choice must be made between the rights of a fully-aware woman who has grown and made a unique impact on the world for many years and a rudimentary life that exists only in potential, I cannot understand why anyone would claim a fetus has rights that superceed those of the woman who created it.
Abortions are
NEVER done "one minute before birth." Or two minutes. Or 10, 1,000, or 10 thousand minutes before birth. During the last trimester, abortions may only be done for compelling medical reasons, such as to save the life or health of the woman or if the fetus has severe defects.
Hi Terry,
Do you consider "if the fetus has severe defects" to be a sound rationale for abortion?
Hmmm. The unborn child is ill (hereditary disease or abnormality, or whatever ), so we'll fix that by killing her. Why would anyone consider this a sound course of action?
Your statement on when the unborn might be "aware" has no bearing on the discussion. If I am asleep and not aware that you inject me with poison to kill me, I still die.
The point is not "awareness", the point is life, Terry. And since brain waves have been recorded as early as the 6th week, your theory of when the unborn begins awareness is highly suspect anyway. Your use of lame euphemism ("rudimentary life that only exists in potential") is indicative of the fact that you cannot talk in a straightforward fashion about what is actually taking place in an abortion.
Abortions are performed by slicing an unborn into small pieces in a painful grueling procedure, or injecting saline into the womb for the unborn to inhale into the lungs and burn itself chemically to death, slowly and painfully. Your denial of the unborn's personhood is only made more ridiculous by your denial of the barbaric procedures which are used to exterminate her.
If you used procedures such as an abortionist uses to rid yourself of a stray dog or cat, you would likely face serious jail time in many localities.
Also you seem to gloss over the legality of third trimester abortions. Perhaps your state has legal restrictions or prohibitions, but other states are another story. In those locations, abortion is perfectly legal up to the point of birth.
