...Or, in other words, abortion does not equal killing.
(For clarity's sake, and future reference, abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy, which, in turn, refers to the implantation of the fetal portion of the placenta into the uterus. The methodology of said abortion, refers to the procedures utilized by the provider to facilitate it.)
I have had at least one anti try to compare apples and oranges, as if to say that any old comparison to abortion will quickly put paid to the idea that abortion is not equivalent to killing. However, if we look at it more carefully, we will discover that there are some very unique differences between killing (cause of death) and removal of life support, that render these comparisons useless, even though human life is present:
First off, here is my theory (which has two parts to it): Killing equals cause of death. However, under medical/legal guidelines, if artificial life support is removed, the cause of death is listed as lack of brain function, NOT the removal of the life-support, itself. Also, a fetus becomes incompatible with life upon separation from the uterus. Any other interpretation merely results in misplaced responsibility being laid at the woman's door for the way her own biology functions;
Secondly, here is one comparison the anti tried to pass off as irrefutable: If a person is 'removed' from a cliff side, then the one who 'removed' that person did not kill them, by my logic. But that is based on an erroneous interpretation of my analogy. For one thing, that person's body was being affected directly; Since the *methodology* of SOME abortions (thanks, Auragasmic!) affect the fetal body directly, thus resulting in fetal death, those could be correctly termed killing, and would be a more apt comparison to the above analogy; For another, there was no removal of connective material (see title of post, above), involved; There was nothing that kept the second person tethered to the cliff side, much less something such as that that was being targeted by the first person to remove the former from the cliff side. A more apt analogy would be two people who were tied together by a rope. One person was standing on top of the cliff, while another was dangling down the side of the cliff from that same rope. (Much like in pregnancy, the first person's life would be endangered by the second.) If the first person were to cut the rope, that would not be listed as the cause of death for the other person. Most likely it would be the impact listed as such.
I simply hope this blog has, at least, provided anyone who runs across it, some food for thought.
(For clarity's sake, and future reference, abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy, which, in turn, refers to the implantation of the fetal portion of the placenta into the uterus. The methodology of said abortion, refers to the procedures utilized by the provider to facilitate it.)
I have had at least one anti try to compare apples and oranges, as if to say that any old comparison to abortion will quickly put paid to the idea that abortion is not equivalent to killing. However, if we look at it more carefully, we will discover that there are some very unique differences between killing (cause of death) and removal of life support, that render these comparisons useless, even though human life is present:
First off, here is my theory (which has two parts to it): Killing equals cause of death. However, under medical/legal guidelines, if artificial life support is removed, the cause of death is listed as lack of brain function, NOT the removal of the life-support, itself. Also, a fetus becomes incompatible with life upon separation from the uterus. Any other interpretation merely results in misplaced responsibility being laid at the woman's door for the way her own biology functions;
Secondly, here is one comparison the anti tried to pass off as irrefutable: If a person is 'removed' from a cliff side, then the one who 'removed' that person did not kill them, by my logic. But that is based on an erroneous interpretation of my analogy. For one thing, that person's body was being affected directly; Since the *methodology* of SOME abortions (thanks, Auragasmic!) affect the fetal body directly, thus resulting in fetal death, those could be correctly termed killing, and would be a more apt comparison to the above analogy; For another, there was no removal of connective material (see title of post, above), involved; There was nothing that kept the second person tethered to the cliff side, much less something such as that that was being targeted by the first person to remove the former from the cliff side. A more apt analogy would be two people who were tied together by a rope. One person was standing on top of the cliff, while another was dangling down the side of the cliff from that same rope. (Much like in pregnancy, the first person's life would be endangered by the second.) If the first person were to cut the rope, that would not be listed as the cause of death for the other person. Most likely it would be the impact listed as such.
I simply hope this blog has, at least, provided anyone who runs across it, some food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment