Hey guys,
No real intro – I had a drive home, did some reflecting, decided to put it on paper, and didn’t see why it shouldn’t be posted (rather than should – haha). Hope some piece of it has some value.
So, abortion actually got brought up at my workplace today, and it wasn’t until the drive home that I fully got to reflect on everything and piece it all together. Thankfully, I never involved myself in the debate, by the way.
The debate between colleagues was actually wholly contained within the modern one-dimensional politically accepted paradigm, a guy makes a “mistake”/something happens, the woman gets pregnant. In this case, the guy doesn’t want the baby, but the woman does. Now, the guy is being “forced” into having a baby, and that just isn’t right.
Sidenote: I’m not sure how the guy is being forced into doing anything. He may have fertilized an egg, but it’s her pregnancy. She gives birth to the baby, but I don’t see how that has any impact on a biological father. Now, the one thing that I don’t understand (and haven’t ever bothered/wanted to look up under Roe v. Wade), is that it is the woman’s body, and she has the right to choose. I’ve never heard the implications that has for men. So, if a guy impregnated a woman, she wants to keep the baby, he doesn’t, does that mean it’s the woman’s? According to Roe v. Wade, that baby doesn’t have to be born. If the woman didn’t want it, it would never come to fruition.
So, in her executive decision to have this thing (that cannot classified as life under Roe v. Wade because you can’t kill people), if a guy were to make a legal statement of dissention, that he did not want this thing to exist, but that it will exist exclusively because of the woman’s choice, does that absolve him of any responsibility to that child? He didn’t want the child, and, at its conception it was within all legal bounds to nullify it, but exclusively because of the woman and against his wishes, it now exists and he’s a father. But what financial burden does that really impose, when all the man did was have sex? Not all sex results in childbirth and costs thousands of dollars. This one certainly shouldn’t have, according to the man. Especially if it was never agreed upon, and should’ve never happened (broken condom), and the woman didn’t believe in the morning-after pill, abortion, etc.
Moving on, the one dimensional argument was completely underwhelming. It failed to account for any of the implications on society that codifying these necessary laws on it would have. It consisted entirely of “well, this guy wants to do this”, or “this girl wants to do that”. At one point, the “pro-life” guy stated “Well, society needs to man up and do these things because this is important and how it should be.” Getting closer, but still so far off the mark. That’s nice that you’ve brought up the issue of society, but all you’ve really done is attempt to impose your personal belief of what you believe is right on everyone else.
At no point was the concept or beginning of life even discussed, which is actually the entire lifeblood of the debate. Even more so, it was never discussed what the impact would be if something wasn’t life, what you could do with it, what happens, or, if it is life, what that means can’t happen, and what would have to happen.
And again, I’m not talking about society in the material sense. No, I’m not talking about “Oh, because this child couldn’t be aborted, now it either has unloving parents, or has to go to an adoption house, etc”. Or because since abortion is allowed, people will go sex-crazy and society will usher in a new-age of Hellenistic culture whatever.
I’m trying to talk about something at such a higher level. That we, ourselves, are making an artificial decision on what is or isn’t life. Something above us. Something that we don’t understand. At a cosmic level. And we’re responsible for that; we made the decision. I don’t like that idea. I don’t want to be the guy who makes that assumption; I don’t particularly like this debate. But if you have to accept the fact that you don’t fully understand life, and that you’re deciding on something that determines life, do you really want to be the one who devalues life? I don’t.
So, this next part does make the assumption that, if you support abortion, that you’re like most liberals and don’t believe in late term third-trimester abortions, because at that point it’s considered life, the baby has formed, it can feel pain, etc. (Now, if you believe in all abortion, fine – the below isn’t all wholly dependent on it).
I have to wonder what changes and really makes it become life. Biologically speaking, it’s always been a baby. Once an egg is fertilized, nature taking its course, it becomes a baby. If you don’t believe me, then why not go get an egg fertilized, and see me in about 9 months. No further action required. Biologically speaking, once that egg is fertilized, it grows and becomes a baby.
So what exactly changes, aside from the physical growth? How are you able to say that’s not life, when without any intervention, it becomes exactly that? Especially if you’re against late term abortions, just because it looks like a human? So does that mean humans have to look like humans to have human life? Or because they feel pain? How do you know the exact moment that baby feels pain? Does pain constitute human life? What data or understanding do you have that allows you to decide what is or isn’t life? Do you really feel that comfortable judging life? And here’s the thing: writing this, I understand my statements aren’t by any stretch a gospel or indisputable cosmic fact. But here’s the problem: I’m pretty sure, unless you’re God, you can’t say you know what life is (and who knows, maybe even then you don’t.) So either you’re psychotic, or there is this monumental decision that was just made that may or may not end who knows how many human lives, yet this is celebrated and championed as some kind of woman’s rights victory. That’s the problem. This isn’t some victory over oppressionist reactionaries; this is a big deal on valuing human life. Yet for some reason it’s a “woman right”.
In either case, so we support Roe v. Wade. Great. People have abortions. Let’s try to actually examine what that means in a legal sense.
Again, Roe v. Wade has to decide what is and isn’t life, because you can’t kill people. So, that means during certain points (or up to a certain point), that human in your body is actually just a thing. It doesn’t have any real rights.
Now, the big thing I’m seeing is actually ObamaCare. No, not lack of insurance, or rising premiums, etc. The big problem with ObamaCare is its federal regulation of the healthcare market. And it needs to be affordable. And now that the government has passed ObamaCare, these regulations, these promises, they have a legal obligation to see them through; you want the government in your healthcare. Again, the government has to make it affordable, and one of the more glaring problems in our future is healthcare costs (right – all those who support the Affordable Care Act?) So, when there are things that are unhealthy, rise healthcare costs, costs healthcare (or the government) money, the government has a legal obligation to act. Which it already has – the tanning tax: do something unhealthy, pay a penalty (which would rationally mean paying the entire cost, if you assume the party is at fault for what you’ve declared is an expense).
So, you want to have a thing (not a human, because it’s not a human at this point.) Well, say it’s the future, genetics has progressed to the point where we can screen all fertilized eggs for their DNA composition and see what defects they have. Effortlessly we could become a Spartan/survival of the fittest society. “Your thing will develop ADHD. That’s going to cost the healthcare system $500,000 over its life. Do you have the money to pay these costs? No? Sorry – you can’t afford or have this.” And for good dystopian measure, “Also – because of the ADHD, (*hypothetically*) your newborn will be at a 20% increased risk of becoming a murderer, so you’ll have to buy this insurance or pay this bond.” Or maybe society thinks #2 is a great idea first (or, just the select few who pass all these unpopular laws), and then you know, #1 becomes a reality.
In any case, whenever this is debated, I fail to see an intellectual discourse take place that even discusses any higher-level thought beyond the immediate impact of what one or the other person does or doesn’t want to do. In writing this, I realize it actually probably wouldn’t be that difficult to go line-by-line and “dissect” all the various statements made and deconstruct things. So no, I mentioned that I actually don’t like this debate and don’t pretend to have the answer; it’s just that it annoys me. The problem is that it seems like both sides think they can impose a reality on the other that’s all rainbows and sprinkles when that’s not the world we live in. I just don’t understand why people aren’t asking what life is, or how we can appropriately respect it.
No real intro – I had a drive home, did some reflecting, decided to put it on paper, and didn’t see why it shouldn’t be posted (rather than should – haha). Hope some piece of it has some value.
So, abortion actually got brought up at my workplace today, and it wasn’t until the drive home that I fully got to reflect on everything and piece it all together. Thankfully, I never involved myself in the debate, by the way.
The debate between colleagues was actually wholly contained within the modern one-dimensional politically accepted paradigm, a guy makes a “mistake”/something happens, the woman gets pregnant. In this case, the guy doesn’t want the baby, but the woman does. Now, the guy is being “forced” into having a baby, and that just isn’t right.
Sidenote: I’m not sure how the guy is being forced into doing anything. He may have fertilized an egg, but it’s her pregnancy. She gives birth to the baby, but I don’t see how that has any impact on a biological father. Now, the one thing that I don’t understand (and haven’t ever bothered/wanted to look up under Roe v. Wade), is that it is the woman’s body, and she has the right to choose. I’ve never heard the implications that has for men. So, if a guy impregnated a woman, she wants to keep the baby, he doesn’t, does that mean it’s the woman’s? According to Roe v. Wade, that baby doesn’t have to be born. If the woman didn’t want it, it would never come to fruition.
So, in her executive decision to have this thing (that cannot classified as life under Roe v. Wade because you can’t kill people), if a guy were to make a legal statement of dissention, that he did not want this thing to exist, but that it will exist exclusively because of the woman’s choice, does that absolve him of any responsibility to that child? He didn’t want the child, and, at its conception it was within all legal bounds to nullify it, but exclusively because of the woman and against his wishes, it now exists and he’s a father. But what financial burden does that really impose, when all the man did was have sex? Not all sex results in childbirth and costs thousands of dollars. This one certainly shouldn’t have, according to the man. Especially if it was never agreed upon, and should’ve never happened (broken condom), and the woman didn’t believe in the morning-after pill, abortion, etc.
Moving on, the one dimensional argument was completely underwhelming. It failed to account for any of the implications on society that codifying these necessary laws on it would have. It consisted entirely of “well, this guy wants to do this”, or “this girl wants to do that”. At one point, the “pro-life” guy stated “Well, society needs to man up and do these things because this is important and how it should be.” Getting closer, but still so far off the mark. That’s nice that you’ve brought up the issue of society, but all you’ve really done is attempt to impose your personal belief of what you believe is right on everyone else.
At no point was the concept or beginning of life even discussed, which is actually the entire lifeblood of the debate. Even more so, it was never discussed what the impact would be if something wasn’t life, what you could do with it, what happens, or, if it is life, what that means can’t happen, and what would have to happen.
And again, I’m not talking about society in the material sense. No, I’m not talking about “Oh, because this child couldn’t be aborted, now it either has unloving parents, or has to go to an adoption house, etc”. Or because since abortion is allowed, people will go sex-crazy and society will usher in a new-age of Hellenistic culture whatever.
I’m trying to talk about something at such a higher level. That we, ourselves, are making an artificial decision on what is or isn’t life. Something above us. Something that we don’t understand. At a cosmic level. And we’re responsible for that; we made the decision. I don’t like that idea. I don’t want to be the guy who makes that assumption; I don’t particularly like this debate. But if you have to accept the fact that you don’t fully understand life, and that you’re deciding on something that determines life, do you really want to be the one who devalues life? I don’t.
So, this next part does make the assumption that, if you support abortion, that you’re like most liberals and don’t believe in late term third-trimester abortions, because at that point it’s considered life, the baby has formed, it can feel pain, etc. (Now, if you believe in all abortion, fine – the below isn’t all wholly dependent on it).
I have to wonder what changes and really makes it become life. Biologically speaking, it’s always been a baby. Once an egg is fertilized, nature taking its course, it becomes a baby. If you don’t believe me, then why not go get an egg fertilized, and see me in about 9 months. No further action required. Biologically speaking, once that egg is fertilized, it grows and becomes a baby.
So what exactly changes, aside from the physical growth? How are you able to say that’s not life, when without any intervention, it becomes exactly that? Especially if you’re against late term abortions, just because it looks like a human? So does that mean humans have to look like humans to have human life? Or because they feel pain? How do you know the exact moment that baby feels pain? Does pain constitute human life? What data or understanding do you have that allows you to decide what is or isn’t life? Do you really feel that comfortable judging life? And here’s the thing: writing this, I understand my statements aren’t by any stretch a gospel or indisputable cosmic fact. But here’s the problem: I’m pretty sure, unless you’re God, you can’t say you know what life is (and who knows, maybe even then you don’t.) So either you’re psychotic, or there is this monumental decision that was just made that may or may not end who knows how many human lives, yet this is celebrated and championed as some kind of woman’s rights victory. That’s the problem. This isn’t some victory over oppressionist reactionaries; this is a big deal on valuing human life. Yet for some reason it’s a “woman right”.
In either case, so we support Roe v. Wade. Great. People have abortions. Let’s try to actually examine what that means in a legal sense.
Again, Roe v. Wade has to decide what is and isn’t life, because you can’t kill people. So, that means during certain points (or up to a certain point), that human in your body is actually just a thing. It doesn’t have any real rights.
Now, the big thing I’m seeing is actually ObamaCare. No, not lack of insurance, or rising premiums, etc. The big problem with ObamaCare is its federal regulation of the healthcare market. And it needs to be affordable. And now that the government has passed ObamaCare, these regulations, these promises, they have a legal obligation to see them through; you want the government in your healthcare. Again, the government has to make it affordable, and one of the more glaring problems in our future is healthcare costs (right – all those who support the Affordable Care Act?) So, when there are things that are unhealthy, rise healthcare costs, costs healthcare (or the government) money, the government has a legal obligation to act. Which it already has – the tanning tax: do something unhealthy, pay a penalty (which would rationally mean paying the entire cost, if you assume the party is at fault for what you’ve declared is an expense).
So, you want to have a thing (not a human, because it’s not a human at this point.) Well, say it’s the future, genetics has progressed to the point where we can screen all fertilized eggs for their DNA composition and see what defects they have. Effortlessly we could become a Spartan/survival of the fittest society. “Your thing will develop ADHD. That’s going to cost the healthcare system $500,000 over its life. Do you have the money to pay these costs? No? Sorry – you can’t afford or have this.” And for good dystopian measure, “Also – because of the ADHD, (*hypothetically*) your newborn will be at a 20% increased risk of becoming a murderer, so you’ll have to buy this insurance or pay this bond.” Or maybe society thinks #2 is a great idea first (or, just the select few who pass all these unpopular laws), and then you know, #1 becomes a reality.
In any case, whenever this is debated, I fail to see an intellectual discourse take place that even discusses any higher-level thought beyond the immediate impact of what one or the other person does or doesn’t want to do. In writing this, I realize it actually probably wouldn’t be that difficult to go line-by-line and “dissect” all the various statements made and deconstruct things. So no, I mentioned that I actually don’t like this debate and don’t pretend to have the answer; it’s just that it annoys me. The problem is that it seems like both sides think they can impose a reality on the other that’s all rainbows and sprinkles when that’s not the world we live in. I just don’t understand why people aren’t asking what life is, or how we can appropriately respect it.
