Part III of a three-part series:
So the debate around abortion centers around when is a developing embryo considered a human. But I say that the real debate is,
"When do want to rationalize the murder of a human?"
And in the tradition of The Black Sphere, I will prove my point beyond argument from the other side.
To begin the debate, a few definitions are in order.
A – Pro-Choice - People who believe that abortion is birth control, and should be wielded as recklessly as a woman decides, because it's her body.
B - Pro-life - People who believe that under no circumstances should a woman have an abortion, and that once a woman conceives life, she is bound to protect both lives.
C - Pro-life-Pro-Choice - People who believe that what a woman choose to do with her body is impossible to legislate, however they believe that a woman should not choose abortion.
C(i) – Subgroup I - Under any circumstances
C(ii) – Subgroup II – Except in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, grave illness of the child, and so on.
This is an area where Conservatives can be split, though I suspect at our core we mostly agree with "C" or one of its variant forms that I have described.Now for everybody except Pro-Choice, euphemism for Abortionists, which is what I will call them, there is little debate about when life begins. So I am writing this mostly to Abortionists, as a definitive and irrefutable explanation of when life begins.
So what this means is that there is not a single person alive or dead who could have had their first trimester disrupted and survived. So this is definitive logic that we are human at conception. I will pay $10K to any of you who can debate me successfully on this point. You know what, why not make it $100K?
So I go back to my original treatise that, this is less of a debate on when we are human, and moreso on when we can rationalize killing a human. I think this is a much more lively debate.
Abortionists argue that it is ok to kill a human in the first trimester. They say that we look like tadpoles or seahorses during this time. Maybe that sounds like a reasonable rationalization for killing a human? After all, it doesn't look human!
Kervorkianists might say that it's ok to kill people in their waning years of life, for no other reason than septuagenarians are just too difficult to deal with. Or as Obama said about new born babies who escaped abortion, "Why should she be burdened with it?"
Essentially what Abortionists are telling us is that they will take the easy way out. "In sickness and in health" for wedding vows will be 'changed' (get it?) to "In health only, because if you get sick, I will abort your ailing butt". Kick you to the curb. Throw you under the bus!
Isn't it refreshing to think that there is a group of people out there who view human life at whatever stage as a matter of convenience for them?
It is irrefutable that we all started the same. We were human at conception, not in the second or third trimester, or any other derivative therein. All this discussion is really about is: "When is it ok to kill a human and not have to feel guilty about it?" I dare you to prove me wrong.
Google 'abortion images' and tell me what you see. It's not tadpoles and seahorses, that I guarantee you.
That's my rant!
©2008 Kevin Jackson – The Black Sphere All Rights Reserved