Saturday, October 18, 2008

No one is pro-abortion.

This issue has been thrust in my face by a few people I know, for whom this is THE issue on which they will base their vote in November. I find I'm not very eloquent about expressing my views. I am not sure exactly WHAT my views are when it comes to the nitty gritty. I guess I just fear a world in which a woman loses a right to her own body. Am I the only person who's read A Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood and sees a connection? Chilling book, that.

In the last debate McCain made some comments about folks who are "pro-abortion" and I felt his word choice was very deliberate and underhanded. He was trying to slip it in and I was so thankful that Obama called him on that. It's about having a choice. No one is pro-abortion.

McCain also used some rather offensive "air quotes" regarding the "health of the mother" as if to say that was a big joke or some kind of lie. In reference to late term abortions and whether they should remain legal when the health of the mother is at stake, McCain's words:

"Health for the mother." You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health."

Alexa at Flotsam had a few words to say, as a woman who's dealt with infertility, pregnancy, loss of an infant, and the potential for health risk for both her other baby and herself. She says it better than I can. Here's a sample from her more lengthy post.

I was, angry at his cavalier treatment of the subject, at the inane and misleadingly benign phrase “culture of life” (whereas the rest of us, if not actually invested in a culture of DEATH, are merely “meh” on the concept of life. Life? Oh I can take it or leave it!). I was angry at his use of the term “pro-abortion,” a term that could only be coined by someone who has never had to contemplate such a procedure, or watched a loved one do the same.

It is my understanding that McCain believes late-term abortion should be outlawed except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother. But when do you make that determination? When does “health of the mother” turn into “life of the mother,” anyway? What organs would the infection have to spread to and shut down before I would be permitted to terminate my pregnancy? Would they wait until I was on a ventilator, or merely until my lungs were beginning to fill with fluid?

Nothing is simple. Each case unique. Each struggle a personal and difficult one. Doctors can advise, sometimes people can get lucky, but in the end it should come down to a decision made by a woman not a law that can't begin to deal with the grey areas. And McCain so clearly doesn't understand this. He scorns the struggle. Fails to recognize that this health risk is a real concern. As he is so fond of saying.... he just doesn't understand.

And on a related issue (that of not really understanding) was it just me or does he also not understand the rather profound difference between autism and Downs Syndrome? And is Governor Palin an expert on special needs, particularly autism, because she has a child with special needs or was there a need to bone up on that in her previous job experiences and how old is that child exactly, if the former is true? No explanation for her credentials was given. It all just seemed rather suspect. I sincerely hope others are adding this stuff up and seeing the McCain/Palin duo for what they really are. Frightening.

10 comments:

E. Louise said...

"No-one is pro-abortion".
Absolutely. It's possible to be pro-life and pro-choice.

Anonymous said...

What about Obama Hussein's Illinois senate vote that gave authority to a physician to end the life of a baby that was born during a botched abortion? If you call yourself a Christian how can you vote for someone like this? Did you know Ms. liberal, that after 21 days there is blood flowing through a fetus's heart? No, probably not, because you are too busy worshiping your new Messiah. The bible has many verses that proclaim that life begins in the womb, and that he has known us even before birth. Isaiah 44:2 is just an example...."... the Lord who made you And formed you in the womb...." When you vote for someone who is pro-abortion, you are voting for someone who is anti-bible, anti-Christian and is anti civilized. When we start rationalizing liberal viewpoints to match the bible is when Christianity turns lukewarm, and Christ Himslelf says He will "spit the lukewarm from his mouth".

Carm said...

Dear Anonymous,

You are entitled you your opinion which you will certainly exercise with your vote. I would encourage you when making your witness for Christ or the unborn to actually use your name. I realize you probably didn't think to sign the comment and perhaps the anonymous option was the only one if you didn't have a blogger account.I just think it makes your statement more powerful when you are willing to put your name behind it. Of course, you probably already realize that.

And just for clarification you seem to be confused on Barack Obama's name. Hussein is his middle name.

And I have to admit this may be the first time I have been referred to as "Ms. Liberal." I guess I'll add that to "Bible Banger" or other nicknames I've been called that fail to completely describe me.

The new Messiah? Wow. I guess Jesus is still alright with me. :)

I would actually say that right now I am anything but lukewarm in my faith and beliefs. I was merely trying to reveal the not so subtle attempts of John McCain to ignore the grey areas of this issue thus disenfranchising women all over our nation who have faced issues that don't neatly fit into your ideology.

I really don't know a single person who FAVORS abortion, there is no such thing as this new term --"pro-abortion." The terminology, if you'd really understood my point, is pro-choice. As E. said one can be anti-abortion and pro-choice. I am very much anti-abortion and I do believe a baby is a baby from conception. But I am a person too. That doesn't cease to matter once I become pregnant.

Thanks for commenting. Though you clearly think I am way off base, I applaud your daring (however anonymous) at speaking your thoughts. It's obvious that neither of us is doing much to change one another's minds but THINKING about things a bit more is a good thing for all of us.

Anonymous said...

You should go back and re-read your last comment carefully. There is no way you can call yourself anti-abortion, and then at the same time support a woman's right to murder an unborn baby. You either support abortion rights, or you don't. You also said you believe a baby is a baby from conception. What then, gives a woman the right to murder her baby inutero verses outside her body? If you truly believe that life begins at conception, then ending that life is murder plain and simple. If you could ask Jesus what his view on abortion was what do you think he would say? Would he say it is okay to destroy an unborn baby that He created?
There is a serious problem right now with the Christian church because as this country starts leaning more and more to the left, it also influences liberal theology. People who call themselves Christians now have no problems supporting abortions, gay marraige, gay rights, and other issues which in my opinion directly contradict the bible.

You can be passionate about an issue but you can also be dead wrong.

Carm said...

I am anti-abortion, personally. I would make that choice for myself. That is all I meant. I believe women need to have that choice. I refuse to impose my personal ideologies on others by limiting options for people in desperate situations.

marvin said...

Carm, just who, exactly, is that dimwit with "bird-droppings-for-brains" who has, for all the world to see, now "anonymously" posted on your blog indisputable evidence of his astounding and absolute ignorance regarding not only the facts involved in the science of human biology, but also regarding the most basic conclusions of all modern, high-level, academically sophisticated, hermeneutical studies of the Judeo-Christian scriptures?

It never ceases to amaze me how the most rabid of the would-be "Christian," holier-than-thou, extreme right-wing, anti-abortion crusaders are also the same people who totally FAIL to understand the first thing regarding the true import of the Bible! As authority for their strident, unyielding, absolutist views, they simplemindedly attempt to quote a handful of pointless passages, almost randomly plucked from the Bible, that are meaningless and ridiculous when taken out of context and which, literally, have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the complexities of either the moral or the scientific aspects of the one issue they claim so troubles and concerns them!

This current anonymous commenter is not only pusillanimous and, intellectually, a limp dildo, he also presents the perfect example of someone who has ZERO comprehension of what the Bible actually says, of what its verses actually mean, of what the Bible actually represents, of who actually wrote the Bible, of who or what "God" actually is, of who Jesus actually was, or of virtually anything else in such a vein! And this is not to even mention his abject ignorance in the scientific area of human biology!

Indeed, such people as this anonymous commenter virtually always function at approximately the same level as the least educated of the Islamic jihadist terrorists who are consumed by a single-theme, one-track view of life and the world. But such sad people as this present anonymous twit also tend to LACK the dedicated conviction and the (for want of a better word) "courage" of those jihadists, as these anti-abortion maniacs hurl only stilted, simplistic, hypocritical, fundamentalist platitudes, rather than themselves, into the breach!

To even imply that the mere instance of a single-cell microgamete penetrating the outer wall of a single-cell macrogamete somehow constitutes, in human terms, a viable, self-sustaining organism that is capable of being "murdered" by the premature termination of the progress of its developmental process is laughably ridiculous! That sort of non-logic is tantamount to asserting that "coitus interuptus" constitutes the "murder" of the human being who MIGHT have been conceived and then subsequently carried to term and successfully delivered! And any clown who attempts to suggest that the story of Onan in the Bible somehow addresses THIS issue, clearly doesn't understand the import of that story, either!

An embryonic zygote, in it's earlier stages, absolutely DOES NOT constitute a viable, self-sustaining "human being" who is capable of being "murdered." Such a tiny, tenuously situated, frequently not-yet-implanted, globule of protoplasm most certainly IS NOT equivalent to a human "baby!" In fact, the majority of such zygotes never become viable and end up being expelled from the woman's body without her ever realizing that any "fertilization" had even occurred!

To assert that such a microscopic union of cells is a "human being" capable of being "murdered," is basically equivalent to asserting that removing tissue during a cancer biopsy potentially constitutes some similar form of "mass murder" because a certain percentage of the contiguously surrounding healthy cells, that usually are also removed during such a procedure, could conceivably (pun intended) be used to clone dozens or even hundreds of new human entities!

So, when does an embryonic zygote transform into a self-sustaining, viable "human being" capable of being "murdered"? The irrefutably correct answer to that question, logically, would be, "immediately AFTER a successful, live-birth delivery." But intelligent people are usually willing to concede that, more likely, such a "transformation" should probably be recognized as occurring an imprecise number of weeks earlier than AT the conclusion of a successful live-birth delivery. In any case, however, the definition of WHEN an early term embryonic zygote technically transforms into a self-sustaining, viable "human being" possessing anything even approximating the same "rights" as other human beings, is CERTAINLY NOT at any time in the first trimester, and probably not at any time in the first 19 or 20 weeks, and maybe not even at any time within the first 26 weeks!

Why is it so that this "transformation" does NOT occur until at some nebulous point approximately mid-term (or later) in the course of the woman's pregnancy? Because for that "transformation" to occur, the embryo MUST be viable enough to survive "on its own" (or with only limited medical assistance) outside of the mother's body, in order to be considered "alive enough" to be capable of being "murdered." After all, you cannot "murder" someone who is not technically and actually "alive." And a "self-sustaining independence" is the PARAMOUNT determining factor when defining what is, and what is not, a "living entity." Granted, an elderly, seriously ill, or gravely injured adult person who survives only through the use of life support systems in a hospital also does not possess a true "self-sustaining independence," but we are not discussing at what exact point a person CEASES to be a living entity, but rather, at what point an embryonic zygote first BECOMES a living person!

Why must the embryo be viable enough to survive "on it's own," independently of the mother? Because through the use of highly sophisticated medical technology, it is theoretically possible to create a "test tube" zygote that could be nurtured along entirely outside of a woman's body to the point of a self-sustaining viability; yet even THAT rather "sci-fi" scenario would STILL contain the conundrum of exactly at what point that independent viability was achieved! One imagines that through simple trial and error techniques, in the case of this "sci-fi" scenario, researchers might be able to eventually establish with relatively high accuracy a reasonably certain earliest date for this transformation, but thankfully we are not yet functioning, as a society, in such as manner as to be "farming" human infants!

To understand this concept of how a microscopic lump of protoplasm such as a freshly formed zygote is NOT originally a "human being," but can eventually "transform" into a self-sustaining, viable "human being," one merely needs to look at either an apple seed or at a fertilized hen's egg. The former is neither an apple tree, nor is it an apple, yet it contains the FULL potential, over time, and under the totally correct set of circumstances, to eventually become an apple tree that produces many apples! The latter example of the fertilized hen's egg is clearly NOT a "chicken," but it has the FULL potential, over time, and under the exactly right set of circumstances, to eventually transform into one!

And so it is, precisely, with newly formed human zygote cells! Originally, and for some number of weeks thereafter, they are NOT yet human beings, but they contain the POTENTIAL, over time, and under the totally correct set of circumstances, to eventually become a viable human being. Thus, just as it is logically impossible to KILL a future (but presently nonexistent) apple tree, or to KILL a future (but presently nonexistent) chicken by destroying the apple seed, or by destroying the fertilized hen's egg, it is likewise totally IMPOSSIBLE to "murder" a future (but presently nonexistent) human being by destroying the as-yet-nonviable protoplasm that makes up an early term embryonic zygote!

Carm said...

Well, Marv... THAT was a mouthful and an intriguing analysis. Wow.

And is it strange, but I assumed the anonymous person was a girl? I wonder why that is? Anyway... no need for name calling. Hey, play nice, right?

Truly. My comments section is turning it to POSTS! Who knew I was launching such a debate. Thanks for your thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Hey Marvin, how long did it take for you to look all those big words up? Nice cut and paste job from wikipedia pal!!!! You can justify all you want with your big words that you looked up, but you still do not know what you are talking about. Abortion is murder plain and simple, always has been, always will be. When an abortionist is standing before God on judgement day, do you think He is going to say to the baby butcher..."It's okay, you murdered the babies at 9 weeks.... no worries.... he was just a clump of cells....."
Do some homework... read the Bible and tell me where you can justify killing an unborn baby.

Sara said...

I agree with Carmyn. 100%.

stephanie said...

Stephanie said...

This is certainly not an issue of "light opinions", and thus should require one to search for the answers in the Bible. God is perfect...Science is not. I am pro-life for many reasons, but also because I have five healthy children of my own. I know the miracle of a human life. Where do miracles come from? My cousin, had a baby at four months. She had several doctors suggest aborting. She was warned about many health problems and deformaties the baby probably would have. She choose life. Her baby is absolutely perfectly healthy. She sees her running (2 yrs.) across the living room with no problems and thinks about the miracle she has. Marvin, you use big words. I certaintly can't compete with you there. However, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of what you said, neither all science or the bible support your points. There is science to also prove that life starts at conception. Look it up. However, like I said, Science is imperfect, so we have to look to the Perfect One, God, for the answers. Hopefully you do. Sincerely, Steph

LinkWithin

Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin