Conceptions of Life
3/7/06
Okay, so the "right to lifers" would like to outlaw all abortions and designate conception as the starting point of human life. I wonder how far they are willing to go. Does this mean that every menstruating female is responsible for the legal and required proper disposal of a deceased human when she throws out her tampons and sanitary pads every month, because, if she's sexually active there's a good chance she's tossing out a misconception in one of those wads of cotton. Do we confer on every confirmed pregnancy all teh rights accorded to "born" humans, including social security numbers; legal, social and human rights, and HOV commuting lanes? Does the purported father of a fetus have the right to appoint his "conceptus" a guardian when the mother is malnourishing their "baby" by OD'ing on Twinkies and Gatorade during her 2nd trimester. Does a pregnant woman have the right to sue on behalf of her unborn child, her cigarette smoking partner for exposing it to a toxic substance? Will conception, rather than birth, determine a baby's country of origin? A baby conceived by memebers of the "mile high" club will be a citizen of which country? The one the plane departed from or the one the plane lands in? Would we then retract all citizenchip confered on babies conceived elsewhere but born here? If life begins at conception how does this gel with teh Constitution which conferes its rights on those "born" in the United States. Do we have a 9 month limbo period of suspended rights or will unborn fetuses all be treated as wards of the state until which time they are born. Will pregnant mother's be allowed to claim an extra deduction during the tax period of their pregnancies? Will every fetal demise be treated/investigated as a possible infanticide? What do you do with all those cryo-preserved embryos out there?
The bigger question to me is why are some people are so excrutiatingly uncomfortable with the power a woman holds to procreate or not at will? If you take away a woman's right to terminate her own pregnancy you are in essence raping her, by forcing her to either have a baby against her will or to take drastic, life threatening actions to end that reproduction. You are forcing a physical act (that of labor or illegal abortion) upon a woman's body as a result of sexual congress. Rape is an act of physical violence against a person; forcing them to endure a pregnancy is another kind of physical imposition. Forcing a human embryo to develop into a viable "baby" that will be born against their parents' will is another act of domination by one human over another. Hmm, sounds like slavery.
Can't we find some way to allow an 8 cell blastula to be just that? With honor for the potential it has to develop into a fully functioning human baby? How about the other end of the continuum, with a brain-dead patient; is he human? Is a baby missing an all vital brain stem "human?"
What common ground and interests can the right to lifer's and the pro-choice movement find? Isn't it about protecting human life? If so, then shouldn't we abolish teh death penalty, war, murder in self defence? What is at teh base of this basic disagreement about whether or not a woman has control over her own body, when that fetus is still dependent on her for survival? How can we talk to each other about these issues, including sex and a woman's ability to have sex without reproduction in mind.
How can men feel that they have a right to the outcome of one of their millions of sperm unleashed during each ejaculation, just as a woman has a right to each and every one of her considerably fewer eggs? What can be done to address the inherent imbalance of reproductive power when only one sex gets to procreate and the other has to stand by patiently and hope that the incubator of his DNA does the right thing for its physical health and then sticks around so he can father his child?
Maybe we can just acknowledge that women hav always contracepted and often performed infanticide over the millenia as a means to control their reproductive powers. Simply outlawing a method of contraception won't stop the practise. If we want to insist that the preservation of human life is paramount then how can you allow a woman to die from a botched abortion or life threatening pregnancy? If you allow abortion for cases of rape, incest or to save the mother's life then you have already cast a value judgement on which life is of more value and your arguement no longer holds. Life has its continuum and you are dying the minute you are born. Why should a third party get to decide what a woman does with the contents, the viscera of her own biological being? Especially if those contents are undesired and incapable of speaking for themselves.
Okay, so the "right to lifers" would like to outlaw all abortions and designate conception as the starting point of human life. I wonder how far they are willing to go. Does this mean that every menstruating female is responsible for the legal and required proper disposal of a deceased human when she throws out her tampons and sanitary pads every month, because, if she's sexually active there's a good chance she's tossing out a misconception in one of those wads of cotton. Do we confer on every confirmed pregnancy all teh rights accorded to "born" humans, including social security numbers; legal, social and human rights, and HOV commuting lanes? Does the purported father of a fetus have the right to appoint his "conceptus" a guardian when the mother is malnourishing their "baby" by OD'ing on Twinkies and Gatorade during her 2nd trimester. Does a pregnant woman have the right to sue on behalf of her unborn child, her cigarette smoking partner for exposing it to a toxic substance? Will conception, rather than birth, determine a baby's country of origin? A baby conceived by memebers of the "mile high" club will be a citizen of which country? The one the plane departed from or the one the plane lands in? Would we then retract all citizenchip confered on babies conceived elsewhere but born here? If life begins at conception how does this gel with teh Constitution which conferes its rights on those "born" in the United States. Do we have a 9 month limbo period of suspended rights or will unborn fetuses all be treated as wards of the state until which time they are born. Will pregnant mother's be allowed to claim an extra deduction during the tax period of their pregnancies? Will every fetal demise be treated/investigated as a possible infanticide? What do you do with all those cryo-preserved embryos out there?
The bigger question to me is why are some people are so excrutiatingly uncomfortable with the power a woman holds to procreate or not at will? If you take away a woman's right to terminate her own pregnancy you are in essence raping her, by forcing her to either have a baby against her will or to take drastic, life threatening actions to end that reproduction. You are forcing a physical act (that of labor or illegal abortion) upon a woman's body as a result of sexual congress. Rape is an act of physical violence against a person; forcing them to endure a pregnancy is another kind of physical imposition. Forcing a human embryo to develop into a viable "baby" that will be born against their parents' will is another act of domination by one human over another. Hmm, sounds like slavery.
Can't we find some way to allow an 8 cell blastula to be just that? With honor for the potential it has to develop into a fully functioning human baby? How about the other end of the continuum, with a brain-dead patient; is he human? Is a baby missing an all vital brain stem "human?"
What common ground and interests can the right to lifer's and the pro-choice movement find? Isn't it about protecting human life? If so, then shouldn't we abolish teh death penalty, war, murder in self defence? What is at teh base of this basic disagreement about whether or not a woman has control over her own body, when that fetus is still dependent on her for survival? How can we talk to each other about these issues, including sex and a woman's ability to have sex without reproduction in mind.
How can men feel that they have a right to the outcome of one of their millions of sperm unleashed during each ejaculation, just as a woman has a right to each and every one of her considerably fewer eggs? What can be done to address the inherent imbalance of reproductive power when only one sex gets to procreate and the other has to stand by patiently and hope that the incubator of his DNA does the right thing for its physical health and then sticks around so he can father his child?
Maybe we can just acknowledge that women hav always contracepted and often performed infanticide over the millenia as a means to control their reproductive powers. Simply outlawing a method of contraception won't stop the practise. If we want to insist that the preservation of human life is paramount then how can you allow a woman to die from a botched abortion or life threatening pregnancy? If you allow abortion for cases of rape, incest or to save the mother's life then you have already cast a value judgement on which life is of more value and your arguement no longer holds. Life has its continuum and you are dying the minute you are born. Why should a third party get to decide what a woman does with the contents, the viscera of her own biological being? Especially if those contents are undesired and incapable of speaking for themselves.
posted by Barbery at 11:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home