43 lines
3.7 KiB
Plaintext
43 lines
3.7 KiB
Plaintext
Abortion is one issue where I really could give a shit less about either side. Not
|
|
because I am ambivalent. I actually have very strong convictions against both sides. First of
|
|
all because both sides are liars. They aren't even honest with themselves. They don't call
|
|
themselves what they really are, Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion. They purposely give
|
|
themselves unoffensive and misleading names, "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life". The meaning
|
|
implied by the name Pro-Choice couldn't be farther away from what the movement
|
|
represents, which is essentialy destroying a lifeform that doesn't really have any say in the
|
|
matter, therefore not letting it have a choice. Pro-Life is an even more deluded title. Think
|
|
about it, as human beings we all cause a certain amount of death or else we would have died
|
|
ourselves. Everytime you get a burger from Mcdonalds you're indirectly responsible for the
|
|
death of a cow. And vegetarians every time you get a salad from Mcdonalds your indirectly
|
|
reponsible for the death of a lettuce plant. Every time you cut your grass you are directly
|
|
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of blades of grass, which are living creatures. Every
|
|
time you brush your teeth you are dirctly responsible for the deaths of thousands of germs
|
|
which are living creatures. So the only person who could ever legitamitely call themself Pro-
|
|
Life would have to never eat, never practice any hygeine, never jerk off, etc. Maybe Ghandi
|
|
could be described that way, but he's about it. Another problem with the "Pro-Lifers" is that
|
|
their whole movement has an ulterior motive, which is pushing their religious agenda. The
|
|
reason they display such a gross hypocracy as to say it's wrong to get an abortion then to go
|
|
out and have veal for dinner is to perpetuate the arrogant and vicious idea that other living
|
|
creatures don't have a soul while humans do.
|
|
One thing however, that I do believe wholeheartedly in is the use of stem cells for
|
|
scientific research. Abortion is already legal. The fetusus are already dead. To not use them
|
|
as a resource because of someone's misguided sense of morality would be tragic. But I
|
|
digress, the real question underlying the entire abortion issue is at what point along the
|
|
development of this lifeform does it become wrong for someone to remove it as if it were a
|
|
parasite. The "Pro-Lifers" tell you it's the moment of conception. The "Pro-Choicers" say it's
|
|
the moment of birth. Neither one of these positions are supported by any facts. They are both
|
|
completely arbitrary. No reasonable person would buy into such an oversimplification of
|
|
such a complex issue. A newborn baby is no more or less alive than a fetus is, and a fetus is
|
|
no more or less alive than an individual sperm cell. What makes people believe that you
|
|
would be instantly changed from being a chemical reaction to a unique individual with a
|
|
soul at some specific point in your development? The fact is that neither birth nor conception
|
|
are the pivotal points that people make them out to be. In reality life is one continuous
|
|
process which makes it nearly impossible to determine when a lifeform should be viewed
|
|
with whatever set of standards people want to attach to it. So until there's some new factual
|
|
evidence it isn't likely the court's decision on the subject is going to change, nor should it.
|
|
This issue is archaic and irrelevant so it's about time everyone leaves it back in the seventies
|
|
where it belongs. Becuase if you don't, then the government will use your beligerent
|
|
emotions concerning abortion to distract you from the issues that actually mean something.
|
|
Like the fact that we are murdering people and dying needlessly every day in Iraq, and the
|
|
fact that here in America the few civil liberties we ever had are being slowly stripped away.
|