\u00a0<\/p>\n
The last time I wrote on abortion I learned a great deal about myself; individuals graciously reminding me of flaws in my character, lapses in my education, and deficiencies in my intellect.\u00a0 Acknowledging my incompetence; let us again talk about abortion.<\/p>\n
Those advocating abortion believe it is not murder up to a certain point in the pregnancy.\u00a0 They are certain “it” is not a human being at conception; but “it” is a human being at birth.\u00a0 But, when does “it” become a human being?\u00a0 If we are performing 1.3 million abortions a year, isn’t it critical to know the answer to that question?\u00a0 For the 30 years since Roe v Wade, researchers have unsuccessfully tried to define when “it” becomes a human being.\u00a0 And, if they cannot define when this happens, how can they know we are not murdering human beings rather than just aborting human tissue?\u00a0 Did we legalize abortion without knowing when it was murder?\u00a0 Could the difficulty be those favoring abortion started with the desired conclusion and then sought evidence to support that conclusion?\u00a0<\/p>\n
The scientific community spent the past 30 years creating new terms, new definitions; doing everything they could to scientifically prove the fetus is not a human being.\u00a0 But, they still do not have an answer.\u00a0 The terms are mind numbing.\u00a0 Is the fetus viable outside the uterus?\u00a0 The fetus is human; but is it a human being?\u00a0 Does the fetus have consciousness; and if so, does it have self-consciousness?\u00a0 Does the fetus have personhood?\u00a0 When does the fetus have human potential?\u00a0 We need shovels to remove the “deposits” some of these researchers left in the barn of claimed science.<\/p>\n
Those advocating abortion are convinced the fetus is not a human being up to a certain point in pregnancy; they just cannot define when that is.\u00a0 Yet, they courageously refuse to allow that lack of needed information to interfere with performing 1.3 million abortions a year.\u00a0<\/p>\n
One of the early arguments for abortion was the fetus is not a human being until it can survive outside the mother’s uterus.\u00a0 But, technology allows us to keep younger and younger fetuses alive.\u00a0 Perhaps the criteria should be modified to say the fetus has to be able to survive outside the uterus without technological intervention.\u00a0 But then we have to define what is or is not a technological intervention.\u00a0 Does it include baby bottles, baby food, special formulas, medications, and the like?\u00a0 Maybe viability means the fetus must be able to survive outside the uterus without any help.\u00a0 Oops, that would allow infanticide.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Well, maybe that’s not such a bad idea.\u00a0 In England, some physicians advocate infanticide for babies who may have profound disabilities.\u00a0 They believe it would be better to allow the baby to be born, examine the baby, and then decide if the baby is a “life worthy to be lived” or if it should be “eliminated.”<\/p>\n
Trying to define consciousness and self-consciousness creates similar difficulties because science constantly redefines when this occurs, some contending these characteristics do not fully develop until sometime after birth, which would again allow for infanticide.\u00a0 Oops, wrong outcome again.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Research is now trying to define “the precise start of the process that later results in personhood.”\u00a0 In my ignorance, I would have thought that to be conception.\u00a0 But I would be wrong again.\u00a0 Instead, this is defined as the time when “sensory organs, the cerebral cortex, and the thalamus have coordinated functioning.”\u00a0 But, technology is proving fetuses remember the tastes of foods their mothers ate during pregnancy and fetuses can later recognize music their mothers listened to during pregnancy.\u00a0 Is this the point of personhood?\u00a0 Is this human potential?\u00a0 Technology again creates a problem.\u00a0 Improving technology shows fetal mental functions earlier and earlier in pregnancy, potentially too early to conveniently allow for abortion.\u00a0 Oops, wrong outcome again.<\/p>\n
Searching for material on this subject, I found a controversial photo taken by photojournalist Michael Clancy.\u00a0 Dr. Joseph Bruner of Vanderbilt University, a pioneer in fetal surgery, operated on a 21-week fetus while still inside the uterus.\u00a0 Nearing the end of the surgery, a small hand came out of the uterus and clung to his finger.\u00a0 A copy of the photo and discussion of the controversy surrounding it are on the blogs.\u00a0 I know this is not “scientific,” but it brought tears to my eyes.\u00a0 By the way, “its” name is Samuel and you could legally abort this “not-yet-a-human-being” in Idaho.<\/p>\n
As technology improves, the arbitrary definitions used to claim when the fetus becomes a human being will continually be revised to earlier stages of pregnancy.\u00a0 The reality.\u00a0 “It” has viability.\u00a0 “It” has personhood.\u00a0 “It” has human potential.\u00a0 Why 30 years of failed attempts to prove when the fetus becomes a human being; quite simply because the baby is an individual human being from conception. An inconvenient truth.<\/p>\n
![\"Reblog](\"http:\/\/img.zemanta.com\/reblog_e.png?x-id=9bfa47b9-b062-4c8f-9fc1-fb47e085536e\")
<\/a>