Great points! (You have some of the best blogs on myspace BTW =)

And would also like add one more - that abortion also exploits women.

 

If you mean that the pro-abortion movement exploits women, I completely agree.
 

Intuitively “pro-choice” people know that a fertilized egg with its own set of chromosomes has no cogitative ability, and certainly no self-awareness. So they will argue that it is only a potential human life, not a human life. The very fact that it has its own unique set of human chromosomes is completely disregarded as irrelevant because that would imply that the embryo is an individual human life and thus abortion could or would really be murder. The only thing that matters to “pro-choice” advocates is that they cannot see the child in the womb with a naked eye, and they reserve the “right” to never see it.


I would argue that there is no fundamental scientific difference between a fertilized egg and an 18-year-old child. Both organisms have their own unique set of human DNA and both organisms are still developing into a potential adult. The only real difference is how far along an organism is toward becoming an adult, not a human. A human’s cognitive ability, for instance, does not reach its full potential until it reaches adulthood. A six-month-old child has no cognitive ability to recognize that empty space will not support its weight, an elementary student may not understand that volume can be the same in different shaped containers, and a high school student may have undo difficulty understanding advanced concepts such as mathematics. Thus, an embryo, a six-month-old child, an elementary child, and a high school kid are merely at different levels of human development.


Imagine a child five minutes before passing through the birth canal, and the same child five minutes after passing through the birth canal. Do we honestly believe there is any cognitive difference between the two? Do we honestly believe a child only becomes self-aware after they pass through the birth canal as though something suddenly threw on a switch? Now that’s voodoo science. The physical reason for birth isn’t for making life, it’s because the developing organism has run out of room. So it’s not birth, or lack of cognitive self-awareness, but conception that is relevant.


So the real question isn’t a scientific one, it’s a moral one. Clearly a fertilized cell is a human life, the real question is, is it OK to destroy a human life under certain conditions? Executions or soldiers in combat are comparing apples and oranges in that it is completely unrelated to this question except for the fact they are also moral questions. Criminals are paying a price for a social misdeed; soldiers fight and kill for their collective societies; all are completely self-aware. However, the “right to die” question does fall into the same moral category because a human life has lost the ability to be self-aware. The biggest difference between abortion and the “right to die” is that on one hand human life has run its course and has no more ability to progress, the other is that human life was never allowed the opportunity to progress even though it had the capability to do so.


I will say that I am against the vast majority of abortions because I believe the real reason for abortion is personal convenience. If it’s just too damn inconvenient to own up to a mistake then oh well, that is not sufficient justification to destroy another individual human life. The only exception I make is when forced between making a choice between the mother’s life or the child’s life. I believe that this choice should be left for the mother, and to a lesser degree the family to make. I will also say that I personally believe abortion is murder at any stage, but I become more hostile to abortion the longer that the pregnancy is allowed to progress. It is logical to assume that self-awareness is not instantaneous, but rather that it creeps up on us while in the womb. And I will also say that no one can determine at what point a human organism has developed sufficient cognitive capability to become self-aware before forbidding the taking of its life for personal convenience. I believe in general that abortion is immoral and that it is the cowardly way to avoid personal accountability.

 

You make some very good points. With regard to the argument that unborn children have no cogitative abilities, it could just as easily be argued that most full grown leftists have no cogitative abilities either, yet we still let them live. ;o)
 

The whole "right to do whatever I want with my own body" argument was ridiculous from the very beginning.
 

Thank you for posting the truth. My page is pro-life.
:o)
 

The pleasure is all mine, dear lady. :o)
 

Excellent points Ed...

Between you and Ben, I can't add more to it other than those who say it is a women's choice because it is her body. Then I say this: Nope, it is not her body. She did nothing to create it. None of her organs were a product of her own doing and all she has to do is to eat and maintain it. Not even breathing is something we do consciously. So that excuse of "it's my body and I have a right to do as I please with it" is nothing but bullshit.

Notice that even this little counter-argument is not religious.


Then there are those who say, well but I can't take care of a baby. I'm not ready. The child will have a horrible life, etc. Well, I can assure the person who uses this logic is only assuming and trying to justify murder with projections and pressumptions/assumtions. There are other options and even the option of "I'm going to risk it" is better than killing the baby.


Here is a video of an actual procedure... Watch until the end. This video was never released to the public, but I wish it was mandatory. When this video is shown to people who are about to undergo an abortion, they turn around and immediately become pro-life for life.

It's a bit strong and don't be fooled by the title of the post. It was made like that on purpose to counter those asinine peope who were for polar bears and moose and hated Palin for her to have had Trigg.


http://atomtruth. blogspot. com/2008/11/obama-versus-palin-on-animal-rights. html

or just go to

http://atomtruth. blogspot. com and go to the 4th post down.


(It's the first video) -- Again it's strong, but if these pro-abortionists realize what they are saying and what they are about to do, they they must first watch this video...

Watch until the end, that's when you see the real truth. Well, you don't have to watch it, but use it for whoever comes and argues with you.

 

Thanks Mila. :o)
 

Unfortunately, even certain members of the Supreme Court don't seem to be interested in logic or fact-based arguments anymore.
 

Excellent blog, love your analysis.


I think it's so ironic that on the one hand we spend millions saving precious little premature babies in our hospitals, and on the other hand we have people trying to justify the killing of babies at any stage. This world is upside down.


It's real simple for me. I don't have the right to take any one's life. period.

 

Upside down is a nice term for what the world has become... I prefer the word FUCKED!
 

"...the tired argument that the issue is primarily one of a woman's right to chose what she can or can't do with her own body, is an affront to common sense. Nobody has a right to do whatever they want with their body if what they are doing infringes upon the rights of another,..."

Exactly right. If we did use that logic, then one could argue it's their finger, and they could pull the trigger to kill someone if they choose, or it's their hands on the steering wheel, therefore they have the right to run over people.


Absurd!

Like Kaz-Man stated, you are dealing with logic.

 

Spot on Edward, the anti-life fringe are hellbent on killing innocent life.
Yet they have no problem with letting convicted murderers like Tookie Williams live!
 

BRAVO! Couldn't have put it better! The next step in logic 101 is that abortions are abusive against women. A law was basically passed to allow a woman to cause bodily harm to themselves via a medical doctor causing at many times irreversible damage to their cervix and womb, especially underage women whose cervix's are not yet fully developed. These damages are NOT tended to during the procedure by the doctors. Imagine going to get open heart surgery and having them lacerate areas in your chest and then they sew you back up without tending to said wound.