The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum
=> Re: Life begins at Conception
| Re: Life begins at Conception |
|
Posted by
Qasrani
(Guest)
- Friday, September 10 2004, 20:55:02 (CEST) from -  Windows 2000 -  Internet ExplorerWebsite: Website title: |
All those things are true. It is a human life at conception, but the issue is at what point does the right of the fetus trump the rights of its host? And when do those rights come into effect? In the US, the Supreme Court decided (in Roe v. Wade) that anything beyond 6 months (when evidence has shown that the fetus is viable ex utero) is illegal. Up to that point, because the fetus is still dependent on its host, then the woman is allowed to make the choice. Fred is absolutely right on the point that illegalizing abortion doesn't make it go away. My mom was a university prof. in Iraq (where abortion was never legal). Her female students would come to her in absolute hysteria because they didn't know what to do with their pregnancy. The rich girls usually got shuttled off to England for the procedure. The poor ones either lived with the shame of having a child out of wedlock (rarely) or tried to get them done by midwives-turned-surgeons (more often), risking complications and being hospitalized for them. It's an ugly truth. My aunt, a school teacher in Iraq, recounts stories of babies being found in gutters, in trash dumpsters. My other aunt who was a nurse in Hilla would tell you that preemies would be left at the hospital steps fighting for their life... This was the reality in Iraq and probably many countries over that ban the practice of abortion. Abortion has existed for time immemorial and it won't go away. The only thing banning it would do is raise the incidence of complications resulting from illegal abortions. It's already a scarce practice. You don't find many new doctors going into the practice. The lack of doctors has led to most clinics that offer the procedure to be in large urban centers; leaving women in rural areas in a lurch. We have judges here in Ohio that are supposedly "pro-life" who have put women that have come before them (as drug offendors or other non-maternity related offenses) in detention just long enough to force them over the 6-month mark, just so they wouldn't abort their fetus. It's an ugly issue, all around. I think that there are more pressing social issues than the legal termination of an unwanted pregnancy. This isn't something that needs to be debated. This issue is a smokescreen for all the other social ills that society suffers from. Bottom line is this: If society really cared for the well-being of its children, it would seriously "leave no child behind." The stark truth of the matter is that children are useless until they are consumers and that is why we withold education and food and their parents (who have to go work to support them) from them. They are just grist for the machine. We live in a society that provides little to no support to its youngsters. The disingenuous part is that some accept that reality (the conservative right) and still insist that we must not kill unborn children. You can't have it both ways. You can try to have it both ways, but you will inevitably lose. American society is passed the abortion debate. You have loud-mouths that want to revisit the issue, but this issue was sealed a long time ago. And I think the only time you will ever have a legitimate debate on the issue again is if certain technological advancements provide for artificial womb technology or the like. You'll be waiting a long time for that. I wish people that felt so strongly about abortions would do more to defend human life and dignity of those that are already born and here on this earth. Lastly, abortion is not such a light decision to make. The various women that I know (both old & established and young & unestablished) revisit their decision regularly. One friend turned to me last week in the middle of conversation and said "I would be in my third trimester now" in the most heart-wrenchingly retrospective blurt. I had to stop and remember and I did. And at that point, I remembered her sobbing on the phone for weeks afterward, questioning her choice but always ending up at the same conclusion that she couldn't have the baby. But she knew that she had to do it. How would she raise a child by herself at her age? I can honestly tell you that she isn't the only woman I have known and every single one of them would somberly tell you that they sadly made the choice for lack of options. To me, that's a societal failing and not an individual one. So, if you want to save babies Paul, go and adopt a few. I'm sure you can afford at least one. Short of that, I don't think anyone, not male or female, can stand against a person's right to choose whether they will be a parent or not. Qasrani --------------------- |
The full topic:
|
|
Content-length: 5049 Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/msword, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/x-shockwa... Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate Accept-language: en-us Connection: Keep-Alive Cookie: *hidded* Host: www.insideassyria.com Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf2/rkvsf_core.php?Life_begins_at_Conception-RZfh.LVht.REPLY User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0) |
Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9