On social media, one news organization asked readers whether or not the "heartbeat bill" was a good thing or not. Discussion on a friend's social media account ensued, and it's helpful to see at least a little headway made with the second of two people I dialogued with. My words will be in blue, one interlocutor's in red, the other in green, and other commenters in various colors.
Tom: Can’t get behind a bill that says what a woman can do with her body and decisions.
Nicholas: I wouldn't get behind a bill that says that either. What the bill proposes is the protection of the female's (or male's) body that lives in a mother's uterus from outside harm. As for "decisions", there are certain "decisions" that should not be protected by the law.
 |
| François Riss- Lullaby |
Tom: Nicholas, I just feel like there are families or individuals who choose an abortion and have very valid reasons for it. As a country we’re so concerned about abortions and preventing them but then once the child is born we provide no help or assistance to many families who can’t provide for their children or even worse the children who end up in the system.
Especially working in a school I cannot say how many instances of child abuse or neglect I’ve seen then you call child protective services only for them to give some half assed investigation into it and say the claim is unfounded cause they don’t feel like dealing with it. I just think the decision to have a child should be up to the woman or the woman and father the full time.
Harry: But what constitutes a "valid" reason? Wouldn't that be a different answer for everyone? Some people use abortion simply as a means of birth control. And if people aren't financial ready or mentally prepared to be parents, then they may have to weigh the risks and benefits of having sex in the first place. These children being neglected and abused is not always the case. A chance at life is always better then wiping it out completely.
Tom: Harry, I disagree with you there, bud. People have reasons to not have children and this whole “well just don’t have sex” argument is honestly idiotic. People are going to do that, especially young people who don’t weigh consequences. If they make the decision that having that child will not be a good decision for them or know the child will not be provided with the best life possible I think that is their decision to make. You, me or anyone else don’t get to decide what is a “valid” reason for someone to choose an abortion.
And what about the women who have been raped or molested? 6 weeks is before most women even know they are pregnant for sure. What gives anyone the right to make a decision for them?
Nicholas: I understand where you're coming from, Tom. I can only imagine the horrible things you've seen, or have been privy to, working with kids in a school. I agree that CPS has a lot wrong with it, and something (well, many things) needs to be changed to protect children in the situations you're thinking of. But I think to use the brokenness of this system as a sort of justification for abortion literally "throws the baby out with the bathwater". Just because the water (the system) is bad, doesn't mean we should bring harm to these children (no matter their age) in other ways.
As a country, yes, many are concerned about preventing abortions. But it's extremely unfair to say that such people "provide no help or assistance". On the contrary, most who do advocate for an end to abortion (myself included) donate a lot of time and money to help young mothers and families who may not be able to support their children. Joseph's House is one such organization. Save the Storks is another. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Organizations, and the people in these organizations, work to assist both mother and child during pregnancy and afterwards.
As far as the decision to have the child being up to the mother, or both parents... well, the child's already here. It just hasn't been born yet. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Say we have a mother who has a two year old and a six month old baby at home. She's a single mom and she's just lost her job. She has no family or support system to rely on. She cannot provide for her children. Should she be able to make a decision, protected by law, to end the life of her two children? Should a doctor be legally allowed to euthanize her two, healthy children? Why or why not?
Also, the bill, for better or worse, has exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and endangerment of the mother's life. But before getting into the rare cases such as these, I think it'd be better to focus on the other 99% of abortions that are elective and not stemming from the aforementioned "exceptions". The main question that this bill (and others like it) are trying to address is this: "What are the unborn?"
Asking whether or not there are valid reasons to end the life of another human is an important question.
Tom, you said, "You, me or anyone else don’t get to decide what is a 'valid' reason for someone to choose an abortion."
This presupposes there is no standard by which to measure a right action from a wrong action. Following this logic, no one gets to decide what a "valid" reason is for a parent ending the life of their 2 year old.
Harry: Tom, well, my argument isn't "just don't have sex"...
Secondly, If you read my comment correctly, people who aren't ready to have parents should weigh the costs and benefits more carefully. Just telling a teenager to not have sex, proooooobably won't work, I get that. But I think as a society, we have normalized teen sex to such a degree that learning how to make informed decisions about sex in the first place and just have a little self control have been thrown out the window. And innocent lives that cannot speak for themselves are being killed. Valuing life from its natural conception is a value that is being lost in this country.
Also, to your other comment, if you read the article I posted, there are exceptions for the rare (about 1% actually) of instances where the woman is a victim of rape or incest. I can't BEGIN to imagine what a victim of these instances go through. But, that's a completely different topic. This bill address the rights this unborn human child has.
 |
| Leonardo da Vinci- Virgin and Child with St Anne |
Tom: The argument really comes down to what morally you think is right or wrong. The discussion of “can you kill your 2 year old then?” in my mind is a completely insane way of justifying this bill.
I’ve known people who have had abortions and made the difficult decision that they knew the baby wouldn’t be given the best life possible and they also didn’t want to put it into the adoption system where it could grow up in foster homes. I don’t think any less of these people as I know even at my age right now if I was going to have a kid it isn’t what I want in my life and I know my priorities are not being a parent currently in any way. I’m not saying your take on it is wrong I just don’t personally think any bill saying when a woman can or can’t have an abortion should be allowed. You said you can’t begin to imagine what a woman goes through who has been a victim of rape but you also can’t begin to know what some people go through who conceive naturally and know they can’t provide for that child. I just don’t think it’s up to you or anyone else to decide for that person what they have to do with their own choices.
Nicholas: Tom, you said, "The discussion of 'can you kill your 2 year old then?' In my mind is a completely insane way of justifying this bill."
This wasn't a justification of the bill itself, but applies to the principles behind it. This is an analogy which helps determine if we're being logically consistent when it comes to the value and dignity we give to individual members of the human race. Not sure what's insane about it.
If it is wrong to end the life of a child that is two years old, or six months old, or two days old because of financial or emotional hardship, then why is it permissible (or even right) to end the life of a child gestating in the womb? In other words, if you can end the life of a unborn child for reason "X", why is it wrong to end the life of a born 2 year old child for the same reason "X"?
Which leads back to the question: what do you think the unborn are?
Furthermore, what is it about the decision to abort a baby that makes it difficult? Honest question.
For those that are pro-life, we realize that each child in the womb is a human person. Just as we wouldn't forcibly and violently end the life of an innocent 2 year old (or 2 day old) child outside the womb, we also wouldn't forcibly and violently end the life of an innocent child in the womb. Sometimes humans make wrong choices. And sometimes those choices hurt innocent people. That's why we're duty bound to protect those people who would otherwise be protected by the law from bodily harm if they resided outside the womb. This is why such legislation is important, so that it starts conversations on what is just and what is unjust. And it's already starting a good dialogue as can be seen here.
**********
Anna: And the opinions of the men begin...
Question/Situation: a person is in a car accident. Cannot support his/her own life. Has to be put on life sustaining support. Does that person's spouse/parent/family have the decision to terminate life based on the potential quality of life and survival of the individual being kept alive. Answer: yes. Secondary Question: Sometimes, isn't the reason to pull the plug that the family cannot sustain the financial cost of keeping said person on life support, even though they have a heart beat? Answer: yes.
Different life supporting "machines" same story. Where are the laws forbidding removal of patients from life support? I believe one of you said, "A chance at life is better than wiping life away".
I love that you support people who are in bad situations and choose to keep their child. Thank you for supporting such a hard choice.
The problem here is the removal of the freedom of choice in a medical situation where a being cannot sustain life in it's own. So unless you tell me that my grandfather should be in jail for removing my grandmother from a life sustain system, then all of your arguments are invalid.
 |
| Francisco de Zurbarán- Virgin with the Child Jesus and St. John |
But I'd like to reply to your question. The situation you've presented is a false comparison. What happens to the person in the car accident and the person in the womb is comparing apples and oranges.
You said, "Does that person's spouse/parent/family have the decision to terminate life based on the potential quality of life and survival of the individual being kept alive. Answer: yes."
I'd conditionally agree with this. Stopping medical assistance like life support that is burdensome or extraordinary can certainly be legitimate. A person would not be acting to cause death in such a case, they would merely be recognizing the fact that they are unable to delay the inevitable.
As for the secondary question, yes, I’d agree that this is a reason some families do this. Whether that reason is justified or not is another consideration. But the same principles as above would be in effect. The direct killing of the person in this car crash would be wrong.
You said, “Different life supporting ‘machines’ same story.”
This is where the analogy with the car accident and life support really breaks down. You can’t compare the “support” given to a child in utero to the “support” given to a man who is about to die of his injuries from a car crash. In the case of “medical situations or procedures” like abortion, the child in utero is most often physically healthy. The death being caused by the abortion is direct. In the case of the car crash victim, he has sustained injuries in an accident and “pulling the plug” would not be a direct cause of death. It actually wouldn’t even be an INdirect cause in many cases because typically life support is EXTRAordinary support in the first place.
In the case of the unborn person, we know that, biologically, it is receiving ordinary care. The embryo/fetus is in the only hospitable place it can possibly be. It would die if removed and placed anywhere else but the mother’s uterus. The way that life is sustained in each of these two instances is qualitatively different in nearly every way.
So no, I am certainly not telling you that your grandfather should be in jail for removing your grandmother from a life sustain system. Such removals from life support can be legitimate. What I am saying is that there is no comparison between taking someone off life support and forcibly ending the life of an unborn person. If we wouldn’t end the life of a two year old, who is dependent on his or her mother for survival, we similarly would not end the life of a unborn person who is also dependent on the mother.
Anna: I'm not saying that your opinions are invalid because you are men. I'm simplying [sic] commenting on the fact that on your Facebook post, only men had been giving opinion. Yes women agree with your stance, and there are men that stand on mine.
I think the biggest thing with the overall issue of abortion is that there are more situations and combinations of lives and experiences that structure and contribute to someone's story, that creating a singular answer without allowing the people involved and the doctors involved decide the best course of treatment for each individual circumstance is a mistake.
And I'm not going to try to change your mind. That is obviously a waste of my breath, but what I do hope is that we can agree to disagree. We are all open to our opinions based on our experiences and priorities. We have the choice to the opinions we carry... Good thing I'm pro-choice!
Harry: Yeah, I think its safe to say we disagree, lol. We are all entitled to our opinions. And yes, there are many circumstances involved in a person's life in regards to all of this, I agree with you there. But, at the end of the day, my opinion is just that the unborn baby is still a person that will naturally grow, regardless of these various situations. I don't think others should be able to terminate them.
Anna: Harry, so don't terminate them, and continue to support those who chose not to. And even help educate women who may not be able to see all their options. But to believe your opinion is so mighty that an entire nation of people must live within it is a bit absurd.
Harry: The end goal of abortion is murder though. That is what I think is absurd.
Anna: And in order to murder, there must be life. And in science class, I was taught the living things eat and breathe on their own... Maybe our definition is different? Which is fine. So don't abort, don't murder, but don't tell people who see life differently than you that they have to follow your rules.
And please don't misunderstand me. I do not think abortions are good. I do not think that they are the best option out there, nor do I want to see people abort their children.
I think that there needs to be an entire overhaul of sex education, family planning, and reproductive Health in this country that allows families to be made when and how they are desired to be made.
But that still doesn't mean that I'm going to take away somebody's access to a choice because we're not there yet as a country.
Nicholas: Don't worry, I'm definitely not misunderstanding you. I'm glad we can both agree that abortions aren't good. I would like to know why you think they're "not the best option out there", though. But in any case, I think that your comment to Harry, "so don't terminate them, and continue to support those who chose not to", kind of misses the point that we and other people advocating for an end to abortion are trying to make.
Basically what you're saying is "If you don't like abortion, don't have one." The problem with that sentiment, though, is that such a position gets really scary if we apply it to other situations or scenarios like these:
"You don't want global warming to continue? Don't pollute."In passing laws like the one in Iowa, one isn't trying "to take away somebody's access to a choice". Instead, one is trying to protect the life of an unborn child that cannot defend themselves. One is trying to give the same protections to a child in the womb that a 1 day old child already possess, according to U.S. law. Can you see then why what you ask ("don't terminate them") is problematic?
"You don't want to own a slave? Don't have one."
"You don't want human trafficking to continue? Don't have sex with any of the women being trafficked."
This then gets to the heart of your question, "Is our definition of life different?" Maybe. What do you believe the unborn are?
 |
| St. Joseph and Jesus |
For those looking to protect life in the womb, we know that the child in utero is a life. I think your definition of life is a bit simplistic. My science class had a much more complete definition of life. Here's an example of one definition from a college textbook:
"At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life." [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
You said, "So don't abort, don't murder, but don't tell people who see life differently than you that they have to follow your rules."
Anna, I think if we follow this to its logical conclusion, we'll see that this is a recipe for disaster. Every society has "rules". You and I know this as "the law". Here in the US, we are told not to murder innocent people. It is unlawful because of the immoral nature of the act. Same goes for sexual abuse, theft, fraud, etc. No matter what, as long as we don't live in a society where anarchy is rampant, we will always be subjected to "rules" for the common good.
To use your example above ("don't murder"), I could tell a man hatching a terrorist plot that I'm opposed to murder (this actually just happened and Texas and thank God his friend ratted him out). He says he's not opposed to murder in this instance because he thinks he's doing something good. He feels that he is right in carrying out his mass murder. He sees life differently from me. So he doesn't have to follow my rules, right? I shouldn't enact a law saying that it is illegal to kill people in a terrorist plot, right? At least, that's what we would have to admit if we apply your above quote to other situations dealing with the destruction of human life.
I say all this so you can see where people who hold a different view from you are coming from. We believe that murder is wrong. We believe that laws should be enacted making it illegal to kill another human being. Therefore, we cannot stand idly by as children are being killed, just as we cannot (and should not!) stand idly by while people are being trafficked for sex. We need to do something to protect all vulnerable people, be they in the womb or outside the womb.
Again, I think the main question at the heart of all this is the simple question: What are the unborn?
Anna: Nicholas- I've enjoyed our back and forth over this. Nothing can change without open dialogue from opposing sides both working for the better of all. Your points on social issues carry a lot of weight when determining how best to solve the abortion question, because you are right, if you believe a fetus is living then what's to stop someone from murdering other living humans because it's more convenient for them. And we've agreed, we don't agree on when life begins, so getting to a shared solution will be difficult.
It's really helpful to have civil dialogue. When someone engages in personal attacks, which is all too often, there's no room for growth. It was good to see, at least in this case that we were both able to admit that things can't change without open dialogue.
No comments:
Post a Comment