With that said, there is a lot of talk on the healthcare legislation that is coming down the pipe here in the U.S. Now, the President is
urging the movement of an actual, universal bill, and Congress seems to be agreeing to pass it by a process of budget reconciliation. Policy-wise, we may witness a tangible change of monumental proportions in the USA.2010.
One of the changes that I have been reading about includes a certain wild-card that no one wants to touch; that is abortion. Right away emotions are aroused when discussing this topic and I do not pretend to ignore this. I will not speak emotionally in this post. Since this is such a heated topic, I would like to acknowledge the fact right away. I am not going to be arguing anything from the Right or the Left. Rather, I wish to touch on some areas that would, I believe, enjoy large support from people on both sides of the discussion. This, I believe, is achievable and not impossible. Don't laugh...it's true!
My goal here will be in putting together a syllogism; I am not trying to bludgeon anyone with religious rhetoric, in spite of the fact that this is Sunday's post.
I begin by using the statement--of three--that would gather the highest amount of agreement. This is: 1) The taking of innocent life is wrong. Nearly everyone, except maybe the F-14's of Fresno, would agree with this. I submit that is self-evident, even if one believes that morals are social conventions. A society is just not healthy when people are going around killing other people without merit and good reason.
The second statement is/will be the least agreed upon of the three. That is because it broaches a discussion that has been around for decades, but I will include my reasoning for why I support a certain view. The statement is this: 2) If a pregnant woman is carrying a human being... Well, I guess it is just part of a sentence, and does not make any argument, per se. My position, however, is that this sentence has reasonable support for the affirmative, i.e. that she does carry a human-being.
Let me explain: as far as I understand Biology 101, there are 23 chromosomes in the female egg and 23 chromosomes in the male sperm. These are two human cells that, when they meet, fuse and become one distinctly different cell from the previous two. This new cell has 46 chromosomes, establishing a brand-new fully-complete set of DNA different from all other DNA that ever existed in time and history. We know that DNA is the 'map' which every cell in living beings reads to continue. We also presuppose that this new cell is living, as the egg and sperm minutes before were also living.
From this single, newly created cell, divisions occur and by day three, it has divided 4 times to total 16 cells--each with the same DNA as the first. What this means is, given time and proper environment, this group of 16 cells has every tool necessary to keep going like it has since it was one cell (e.g. it could become a 70 year old human-being, provided there are 70 years + ~40 weeks). The DNA does not need anything more since that initial conception, i.e. 46 chromosomes. The rest is simply 'future'.
The common argument against the embryo being 'human' is that it is dependent on someone else, thus it is not able to be self-sustaining. This is very true. But I would think that same thing could be said about a 2 year old toddler, or sometimes a 92 year old great-grandmother. Another argument is that we don't know when life begins. Remember, this was addressed several sentences ago and it is pretty obvious that these cells are alive. In addition, the mother's egg was specifically human; the father's sperm was specifically human. Thus, we can deduce that the new cell is human. A living human being.
This establishes that the pregnant mother is carrying a human-being. The only difference between that human-being and a newborn (delivered) human-being is time and location. The fact that it is inside mom to be delivered outside mom doesn't change the fact that it is still the same 46 chromosomes.
Third: 3) ...then abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. This is the logical conclusion from the previous two statements. I have not really provided any ground-breaking science here. I have not argued from the Bible at all. I did not batter anyone over the head with my opinion, either. This is simply a reasonable discussion that establishes something that reasonable people can agree upon.
In review:
1) Major premise=The taking of innocent human life is wrong.
2) Minor premise=A pregnant woman is carrying a human-being.
3) Deduction/Conclusion=Therefore, abortion is wrong.
The situation concerning the healthcare bill, however, has not ruled out the possibility of abortions to be paid for by tax-paying citizens, i.e. so-called "Abortion-on-Demand". As far as I understand it, and judging by the President's past record, I don't foresee the abortion aspect of the bill to be removed as there is a large contingency of voters that choose to disagree with the above syllogism, regardless of how rational the evidence is.
In conclusion:
As a citizen of the United States of America, I vehemently disagree with including abortion-on-demand in any form of a healthcare bill. I do not wish to pay for the taking of innocent life, or, known by a another term, murder. I will come right out: I do not wish to pay for murder. And, I suspect, neither do you.
mashmouth
Feb. 21, 2010
Further consideration for the Christian World-view:
A 'Pro-politics' View
http://www.visiontoamerica.org/exclusives/read/8/Why-Politics-is-Necessary
A 'Pro-Gospel' View
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A124_Christians-and-Politics-Part-1
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Anonymous users are allowed to leave comments and questions. Keep in mind that this is in keeping with the Principles of Reality, i.e. Christianity, that doesn't hide from any critique or questions. Please keep it respectful for others' sake--in other words, treat others how you would like to be treated. Thank you for your thoughts!