The Heart of the Debate
The dangerous and highly flammable topic of abortion was raised again at yesterday’s GOP debate. There was conviction, posturing, and probably some pandering, and so it will continue throughout the campaign to come.
Yet for all the complications of this explosive issue, it seems that the central question is quite simple: at what point does one become a human being? If a fetus is not a human being then the arguments of the anti-abortion crowd lose their weight. If, on the other hand, that life is a human being then the arguments of those wishing to “end the pregnancy” become rather a stretch.
Many of the other questions just cloud the issue. What if the child is a result of incest? Or rape? Or what if the mother can’t afford to take care of the baby? The reason for the pregnancy makes no difference; whether or not the abortion takes a human life is the key.
For who would argue that a child born of rape should legitimately be killed at age 5? Or age 1? Or even five minutes after birth? No one. Who would argue that a single mother struggling to support her five children should be allowed to end the life of the youngest for the benefit of the others? Would it matter if the youngest were 10 years or 10 months? Of course not. Then why would it matter if the child were eight months along in a pregnancy? Or four months? If it is a human being then it is a human being.
So there is where the debate must focus. There is no question that life begins at conception and has the genetic make-up of you or I. But is it’s status that of human life? I believe so. For if you wish to differentiate “human” life from that of the embryo you must make what I feel is a rather arbitrary distinction. To say that human life begins at birth but that five minutes before, when the child is still in the womb, it is not a human being is absurd. So what will be the line of demarcation then? A heartbeat? Brainwaves? Fingers and toes? The most logical point seems to me to be at conception. And if that is true, upon what grounds can anyone argue the “right” of a mother over the life of her human child?
Published in the Enquirer this week. Note: The Enquirer shortened the piece to make it fit their new space requirements and the flow was definetly effected. Keeping an editorial to 300 words while still conveying meaningful content is very difficult.
Yet for all the complications of this explosive issue, it seems that the central question is quite simple: at what point does one become a human being? If a fetus is not a human being then the arguments of the anti-abortion crowd lose their weight. If, on the other hand, that life is a human being then the arguments of those wishing to “end the pregnancy” become rather a stretch.
Many of the other questions just cloud the issue. What if the child is a result of incest? Or rape? Or what if the mother can’t afford to take care of the baby? The reason for the pregnancy makes no difference; whether or not the abortion takes a human life is the key.
For who would argue that a child born of rape should legitimately be killed at age 5? Or age 1? Or even five minutes after birth? No one. Who would argue that a single mother struggling to support her five children should be allowed to end the life of the youngest for the benefit of the others? Would it matter if the youngest were 10 years or 10 months? Of course not. Then why would it matter if the child were eight months along in a pregnancy? Or four months? If it is a human being then it is a human being.
So there is where the debate must focus. There is no question that life begins at conception and has the genetic make-up of you or I. But is it’s status that of human life? I believe so. For if you wish to differentiate “human” life from that of the embryo you must make what I feel is a rather arbitrary distinction. To say that human life begins at birth but that five minutes before, when the child is still in the womb, it is not a human being is absurd. So what will be the line of demarcation then? A heartbeat? Brainwaves? Fingers and toes? The most logical point seems to me to be at conception. And if that is true, upon what grounds can anyone argue the “right” of a mother over the life of her human child?
Published in the Enquirer this week. Note: The Enquirer shortened the piece to make it fit their new space requirements and the flow was definetly effected. Keeping an editorial to 300 words while still conveying meaningful content is very difficult.
posted by Southworth at 8:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home