Date: May 13, 2014
If at any point a pregnancy is ended, you ultimately get the same end result…the zygote/embryo/fetus can no longer progress towards sentient life.
Because of this, I really have a hard time seeing any discernable difference, particularly when we are discussing ethics, between performing abortions at different phases in a pregnancy…If you’ve killed the embryo, then you’ve killed the fetus by extension…and killing they zygote kills both the embryo and the fetus, likewise…
Is there anything, other than emotional connection and mindset, which causes a person to give more consideration [and defense] to the fetus than to the embryo?…or the zygote?
Unless it is the emotional connection, because the later stage fetus has developed into [or close to] a physical infant, then I just don’t get the idea, behind why people even make this distinction.
If you’ve done it earlier…then you’ve still done it…there is just less mess, and less to deal with.
Now…the social context issue, is another one I have a hard time not taking issue with, also…
…I can understand the argument, that a mothers [someone who is already a viable, thriving and socially integrated person] life being jeopardized, might justify an abortion…There is no easy answer…There is no “right” answer…It is just crumby circumstance.
Where I diverge, is in the question of incest or rape…Crumby circumstances, yes…But it comes down to a question, of just how sincerely held…are these beliefs on “the rights of the unborn child”…
It is no more the fault of any zygote/embryo/fetus created from rape or incest, that it exists at all…than it is the fault of any other zygote/embryo/fetus, created in the socially condoned ways.
If “the rights of the unborn child” mean anything at all…then children of incest and rape, have every bit as much right to life…and have every bit as much right to be fought for, and protected.
I’m reminded of this show I once watched…A woman was being interviewed…She had been raped by someone she did not even know [who was never caught], and became pregnant…and she talked about the process she’d gone through, when wrestling with what to do about her situation…She was single and young.
…But she decided to have and raise this baby…And by the end of the interview, she was speaking positively glowingly, about this young man she had raised, and all that he had brought into her life…even how it had given her life meaning, to have him…
It was really a staunch look at an issue…from an angle which we almost never see or hear…And it’s not that I’d never conceived such a thing was possible…but it’s the first time I’d ever seen anyone speak of this issue, in that light…It really made me think.
To my mind…the championing of “unborn children’s rights”, in the face of incest and rape exemptions…that comes off like strategic, cliché “sound bite” arguments…like sidestepping an elephant in the room…
In some cases, this is done by some who have even gone through the wailing, gnashing of teeth, screaming, crying and pleading [or sometimes more extreme behavior], to convince us all of the sanctity of unborn life…and of it’s rights.
I cannot help but question how sincere is the campaign, when there are even perceived inequalities amongst zygotes/embryos/fetuses, within the movement itself.
If there are “disposable minorities”, even amongst those staunchly opposed to abortion…what does that say?
This is controversial, for sure…but it seems to me, that turning ones back on the most vulnerable of “just get rid of it” cases, cuts through all of the rhetoric…and displays how honestly dedicated one is to the actual “rights of unborn children”.
Of course…it is unfair to raped women…They have to draw a line, somewhere…but how is it any less fair to the zygote/embryo/fetus, to draw a line such that it excludes all consideration for them and their future?
…If this is how things stand…then how are “the rights of unborn children” even a real thing?