We know in biology there is a phenomena whereby the reproductive cells of two parents combine contributing half their chromosome cells to the newly formed cell which then begins dividing and growing. There is a claim by some that that combination of cells is now a life. The cells before the combination were alive but the combination is claimed to have produced a life. Evidently that life of the life of the cells combined is a life unique and needs the same protections and rights as a fully formed baby that has gone through the process of gestation and birth. But if this thesis is to have any merit there must be some distinction between the moment the cells combine and begin to split and grow. No matter how instantaneous the claim of combination there must elapse some time for the combination to begin its process of splitting and growing. At what point in this process is the new life clear? Is it a life if it doesn’t split and grow? Clearly not. So there is a moment prior to the splitting and growing that would fall under the category of conception and yet life had not begun. Therefore how can the claim that life begins at conception be valid. To carry this thought farther. Suppose the splitting and growing of the cell produces a creature that is incapable of human activity. Suppose the formed cells produce a malfunctioning or underdeveloped brain that will lack learning capacity. Can we then say that a human life has been formed?
Human life has more characteristics that just appearance. Even though a fetus has features that look like a baby it has not experienced the birth process and therefore has only the potential to become a fully formed human being. It is dependent on the carrier ( i.e. the mother ) for its nutrition. Likewise it is dependent on the mother for its decision to become born. It cannot decide. It has no decision making training or experience. It is incapable of getting this experience or training unless it’s mother decides to provide it with a life. There are many reasons why she may not. For instance she may decide she cannot afford any more children and another child would jeopardize the welfare of her already living children. This cannot be determined by a bureaucrat. She may be too young and unable to earn a living to support a child or she may fear an adoptive agreement was made with an unscrupulous couple who would abuse the child. There are many scenarios where being forced to give birth at the point of a gun would not be in the best interest of the fetus or the mother . If a criminal told a woman she had to give birth to a child and forced her to do so at the point of a gun would this not be a violation of her rights? Or under the anti-abortionist’s law would that be sanctioned ? If not ,why is it alright to force a woman via the government but not privately? The answer has to rest in the premise that the government is superior in judgement and implementation than the private sector. But we know that is false. The most efficient operations are done by the private sector. The government can’t even mange to keep out of debt. It can’t run a railroad. It certainly can’t run a retirement program that will remain viable for all. Yet the anti-abortionists ignore all of this and present as their argument a picture of an aborted fetus and claim that that ugly sight should convince anyone that abortion is evil. But the removal of any appendage is bloody and ugly; however, if it contains an infection or a tumor it may save the life of the person having the operation. Likewise the removal of a fetus may save the life of the mother. If you are convinced by the picture of a bloody operation hope you are never faced with a major operation. For if a picture is all that is needed to negate surgery, many other operations could be curtailed and that includes one that could have saved your life. Remember the persons who ignored the butchery of the Nazis and then wondered how they became a victim.
The danger of outlawing abortion is giving the government the power to enforce an individual to act against her will. No one wants to be forced to do anything against their will. Rational people want to voluntary choose the action that will be in their interest. Even the most altruistic want their will regarding what they consider moral to be their own choice. For what does it mean if someone wants something that they consider to be good crammed down their throat. They want to say ,”This is who I am and this is what I chose to be”. For anything else is not a product of their free will which very few don’t recognize as a fundamental attribute of the human species. When someone says, “ I am Pro-Life” or” I am Pro Choice” they are necessarily saying,” I choose to be on this side of this issue. Were they to say,” I cannot help what I chose” they could not ask the opposite view to consider their viewpoint as the opponent could say they too could not help their choice. This deterministic stalemate would cast out the issue of morality for morality is an act of choice.
We then arrive at the making of the best choice and those who would say their choice to forbid others from making choices was a good choice negates the very action they are relying on. For if some choices ( particularly those choices that restrict the choices of others ) are not forbidden then the issue of individual choices and human liberty has been destroyed. When the government chooses but the individual can’t, this is the loss of freedom. For it is the freedom to choose that is the essence of freedom. Freedom to choose an action without being forbidden to do so. Obviously allowing criminals forbidding citizens to choose is the same as allowing the government the same power. Government is a necessary agency to protect the choices of its citizens. This is its nature and function. It has deteriorated into the criminal realm when this was not recognized, known or remembered. To have a free country and to keep it, the government must be constrained to its only function. If it is allowed to make or override the choices of the citizens it has ceased to recognize its limited function in society and starts on the path of statism where the state is omnipotent and the citizens mere pawns serving the wishes of those in power. History tells this story over and over. And it all begins with the meiosis of an idea that some should make others choices. Is meiosis a life? Neither in the literal or figurative sense. It is the beginning of a potential. It is not an end point, a conclusion or a complete human being. It is what it is and nothing more. Attributing a person to this beginning is like attributing all of civilization to the idea of one man. It may have been the beginning but it is not the result. And the result is the entity ( in the case of man) that is entitled to rights and their protection. For the logic of protecting the instant of meiosis leads only to the next declaration that gametes are the beginning of life and require protection from interference from reaching their function of creating a meiosis moment. This is how government gets so complicated in its regulations. Government tries to make the impossible fit with “fixes” for that which is unjustified. And this ,dear reader, is why it must not be allowed to operate outside its proper nature and women should be allowed to decide what to do with their pregnancies. In the vernacular of the citizen, “ It’s none of the government’s business”.Tags: Abortion