The debate about when life begins.
I found this quote at The Survival Doctor's website. I don't know much about this site, but I found the article When Does Life Beging? to be very well done.
"The defining characteristic of mammalian life, including human life, is the continuous process of development, which starts at fertilization and ends at death."
Here is a quote that I think shows one of the most glaring errors in the thinking of pro-choice proponents.
The pregnant woman is not the patient, as if she were ill and in need of a cure. Abortion cures nothing, since pregnancy is not a disease.
Then, to give mothers the power of life or death over their unborn child is extremely foolish. We can look back into history to a time when fathers were given the power of life or death over their children, as well as over their wives and slaves. This was the case with the paterfamilias of ancient Rome. Even Rome eventually saw that power too broad to give to one person, so they put legal limitations on it. Why do we in our day find it wise to allow the mother to wield that same kind of power over her own unborn children? Some would even go so far as to say that the mother of an infant should be able to decide whether or not her child is allowed to continue to live. I am not talking about a very sick baby who has little chance of recovering. That baby may even be on life support, with no hope of living. Yes, the mother may need to make a decision about when to turn off the life support systems. That is not the kind of situation I am talking about.
I am talking about a mother deciding that her child that has been born healthy may be too much of a burden for her to care for. At this point in time, that scenario is not an option. I certainly hope that the few who are suggesting such a thing never get their way.
It seems like a huge step backwards for civilization to be giving that kind of power of life and death to human beings, whether the human being whose life is threatened be unborn or newborn.
The one whose life is in danger is the unborn child in the womb of the mother who is considering ending the life of that child. Yes, there are rare cases when the life of the mother really is at stake. In those cases, if the baby is taken early, measures are taken to try to save both lives. Of course that scenario is not the norm for women seeking abortions. Generally, both mother and baby are healthy, with no problems seen that would justify ending the pregnancy.
Pro-choice advocates always bring up the situation of rape or incest. Of course, it is not the same at all as the situation where abortion is merely used as a means of birth control. Besides, there are many testimonies of women who have become pregnant because they have been raped or because of incest and have decided to have their babies anyway. Why punish the baby for the crimes of another?
Also, all Christian communities teach that there is grace in Christ available to any woman suffering from the trauma of Post Abortion Syndrome. Any woman who
I think that the following conclusion is scientifically irrefutable.
"“Pro-choice docs would say that it is not their business to determine for a patient when life begins,” says Diana Philip, interim executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers and its sister organization, the Abortion Conversation Project. “Ultimately each patient determines the value and definition of life and that definition lies within her own mind and heart.”
Then, to give mothers the power of life or death over their unborn child is extremely foolish. We can look back into history to a time when fathers were given the power of life or death over their children, as well as over their wives and slaves. This was the case with the paterfamilias of ancient Rome. Even Rome eventually saw that power too broad to give to one person, so they put legal limitations on it. Why do we in our day find it wise to allow the mother to wield that same kind of power over her own unborn children? Some would even go so far as to say that the mother of an infant should be able to decide whether or not her child is allowed to continue to live. I am not talking about a very sick baby who has little chance of recovering. That baby may even be on life support, with no hope of living. Yes, the mother may need to make a decision about when to turn off the life support systems. That is not the kind of situation I am talking about.
I am talking about a mother deciding that her child that has been born healthy may be too much of a burden for her to care for. At this point in time, that scenario is not an option. I certainly hope that the few who are suggesting such a thing never get their way.
It seems like a huge step backwards for civilization to be giving that kind of power of life and death to human beings, whether the human being whose life is threatened be unborn or newborn.
The one whose life is in danger is the unborn child in the womb of the mother who is considering ending the life of that child. Yes, there are rare cases when the life of the mother really is at stake. In those cases, if the baby is taken early, measures are taken to try to save both lives. Of course that scenario is not the norm for women seeking abortions. Generally, both mother and baby are healthy, with no problems seen that would justify ending the pregnancy.
Pro-choice advocates always bring up the situation of rape or incest. Of course, it is not the same at all as the situation where abortion is merely used as a means of birth control. Besides, there are many testimonies of women who have become pregnant because they have been raped or because of incest and have decided to have their babies anyway. Why punish the baby for the crimes of another?
Also, all Christian communities teach that there is grace in Christ available to any woman suffering from the trauma of Post Abortion Syndrome. Any woman who
has, in a moment of desperation sought out an abortion needs to know that there is complete and total forgiveness in Christ. She does not have to bear the guilt and shame of that decision her whole life.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
When Does Life Begin?
From April 2013
When does life begin?
I agree with the premise that life begins at conception. There are a number of reasons as to why I agree. Here are some.
1. The patient in question is not the mother of the unborn child, but rather the child himself or herself. It is the viability of that life that is being questioned - not at this time the viability of healthy adult women of child-bearing age.
2. It is dangerous to ask a mother about when the child she carries or carried became a human being. She is not qualified to know the answer to that question. What if she decides that her child is not fully human until he or she turns 21 years of age? Can she terminate the life of any child she deems to be sub-human or not human yet? A mother's answer may vary from one day to the next, depending on her emotional state if she is the one who is to look at her heart and decide whether or not her child is a viable human being.
3. The only safe definition for the beginning of life is that from the moment of conception, the human zygote is a human being. Why safe? First, it is the only theologically safe definition. if God has anything to say about it - and I believe He does - then we had better be careful not to offend Him. Until and unless He says otherwise, it is best to assume that the moment of conception is the moment when human life begins. All of us who are alive at this time can say that our lives began in our mothers' wombs. When did we begin to be formed if not at the moment of conception?
Second, it is the only safe definition for mothers to go by. What a terrible burden it is on women to be forced by society to decided when their child's life begins. I am sure that I am not the only one who has listened to women tell of the terrible burden of guilt and shame they have borne because someone convinced them that the baby they were carrying was not really human; or someone coerced them into having an abortion. Post Abortion Stress Syndrome is very real, in spite of what many pro-choice women say to the contrary. .
Last, it is the only safe legal definition to go by. Otherwise, we end up making purely subjective, unscientific pronouncements about the beginning of life. It is certainly not scientific to say that only a woman can know. It is very bad public policy to leave the decision of life or death in the hands of one person, no matter if that person is the mother of the unborn child. So far we are talking only about unborn. In the future, the discussion about when life begins may move into post birth territory.
1. The patient in question is not the mother of the unborn child, but rather the child himself or herself. It is the viability of that life that is being questioned - not at this time the viability of healthy adult women of child-bearing age.
2. It is dangerous to ask a mother about when the child she carries or carried became a human being. She is not qualified to know the answer to that question. What if she decides that her child is not fully human until he or she turns 21 years of age? Can she terminate the life of any child she deems to be sub-human or not human yet? A mother's answer may vary from one day to the next, depending on her emotional state if she is the one who is to look at her heart and decide whether or not her child is a viable human being.
3. The only safe definition for the beginning of life is that from the moment of conception, the human zygote is a human being. Why safe? First, it is the only theologically safe definition. if God has anything to say about it - and I believe He does - then we had better be careful not to offend Him. Until and unless He says otherwise, it is best to assume that the moment of conception is the moment when human life begins. All of us who are alive at this time can say that our lives began in our mothers' wombs. When did we begin to be formed if not at the moment of conception?
Second, it is the only safe definition for mothers to go by. What a terrible burden it is on women to be forced by society to decided when their child's life begins. I am sure that I am not the only one who has listened to women tell of the terrible burden of guilt and shame they have borne because someone convinced them that the baby they were carrying was not really human; or someone coerced them into having an abortion. Post Abortion Stress Syndrome is very real, in spite of what many pro-choice women say to the contrary. .
Last, it is the only safe legal definition to go by. Otherwise, we end up making purely subjective, unscientific pronouncements about the beginning of life. It is certainly not scientific to say that only a woman can know. It is very bad public policy to leave the decision of life or death in the hands of one person, no matter if that person is the mother of the unborn child. So far we are talking only about unborn. In the future, the discussion about when life begins may move into post birth territory.
We shall see how the murder case in Philadelphia plays out. Will the abortion doctor be acquitted, since there was no intention of letting the babies who survived his botched abortions live in the first place? [He was found guilty.]
What about Sen. Boxer's strange statements about when a baby is to receive full constitutional rights? Here is part of what she said.:
"In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.” Santorum persisted: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?” She would not say “yes.” Instead, she said, understandably: “I don’t want to engage in this.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/31/barbara-boxer-in-context.html
What about Sen. Boxer's strange statements about when a baby is to receive full constitutional rights? Here is part of what she said.:
"In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.” Santorum persisted: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?” She would not say “yes.” Instead, she said, understandably: “I don’t want to engage in this.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/31/barbara-boxer-in-context.html
No comments:
Post a Comment