Like any red-blooded American, I like killing things. Something that frustrates me to no end is how long those hunters can sit in those blinds on the redneck channel and not take a shot at a deer or turkey. It’s right there, just shoot it! Oh, but I was talking about killing babies, not turkeys, so I suppose a slightly more respectable mien must be assumed. In order to discuss abortion, one must first consider when life begins.
Like anyone with common sense, I believe life begins when the equivalent of a human is formed. There is considerable debate about when this occurs, but I’ll make it simple: it’s when the sperm meets the egg. This, of course, is called conception (fertilization). True, implantation must occur for a child to be formed, but at this point (the gamete* union) the potential for life exists. The potential to life should be regarded as the same thing as life itself; before this point (on its own), one sperm has no potential to life, so it should not be regarded as life, or, therefore, humanity. After this point (particularly after implantation), the potential for life may increase, but that does not make any cellular being from this point on any more “human” than was that initial fusion of gametes. The potential for life is the key; any distinction between that potential and actualized “life” or “humanity” is an abstraction and is both unnecessary and unreasonable.
Like any well thought-out proposition, some clarifications are in order. The fused gametes form a conceptus which is human on the basis of its genome; half of its genetic material is maternal and half is paternal. This humanity forms the foundation for the potential personhood that the child may achieve. In aborting the fetus, one is denying the developing child its right to personhood by denying it its very future. This could be taken as the very definition of murder – a denial of one’s potential future. Potential is therefore quite significant in common considerations. Having established when life begins and having made some definitions, one can begin to contemplate the appropriateness of the actual act of abortion.
- Note: For a bit more convoluted of a discussion on such matters, see Noonan’s “An Almost Absolute Value In History.”
Like any cold-blooded male, I’m far-removed from the individual and substantial questions facing the modern American woman. Many of these chicks fall into two categories, I assume: poor and unemployed, or rigid and money-driven. For the former, the question of whether or not to have an abortion is an easy one. Since having a child can be devastatingly expensive, it would be unreasonable for them to keep the children; one could say that they are too poor to have morals. For the latter class of women, their business trip liaisons would not dare impede their ambitions to ascend blazingly-fast through the glass ceiling (chest first, as one man wisely put it). As such, the children are going to be killed whenever they get the time.
Like any good person, I feel that abortion should be extremely reduced, but this is clearly a moral decision. Women try to justify having abortions merely for the sake of convenience by redefining when life begins, thereby stripping a conceptus of its humanity, and I find this deplorable. However, if required to save the life of the mother, an abortion is definitely the proper way to go. Additionally, situations such as rape or incest may indeed warrant the termination of a fetus, even though the child is only fifty percent evil. That’s called being tough on crime.
Like any good conclusion, this next sentence is going to wrap everything up nicely. Life begins at conception, and anything after that is murder, plain and simple; whether or not one condones that murder is a personal decision, but remember – killing a potential hero isn’t nearly as cool as killing a turkey. As for what to do with children that would have been aborted but were not, I have already prepared a very simple and elegant solution.
* Gamete – n. Male or female sex cell (as opposed to “somatic,” or body cell).