I planted a seed

I planted a seed. The storms will undoubtedly come. I pray that the rains will make it grow.

Below is a response to an email list where the term “pro-life” was consistently disregarded and the question “When does life again?” was time and time again left to “I don’t know” and the discussion moved on to other issues.

T. has said that a voter should look at all the issues at hand, find the ones she/he thinks are most important, learn them, and use those to pick a candidate. The popular topics mentioned lately on this list seem to be centered on foreign policy, terrorism, security, environment and the like.

A method of voting I discourage along with T. is considering relationships among issues to be linear and arithmetic. Meaning to count up how many issues a candidate is “right” on, and whoever has the higher count wins that person’s vote. More true to life, however, is to see the various issues in a hierarchical, or geometric relationship. Some are foundational; others depend on the foundation, and it is these that one should highly consider as being important. For example, one would not support a candidate who fights against forest mining but looks the other way on all forms of pollution. They would certainly favor one who supports the foundational issue of environment protection.

This being said, it does not take a lot of thinking to realize that life itself is foundational to all rights and issues including the ones mentioned above. If the government claimed the right to take away your life, it would hardly impress you if it promised you all kinds of other rights. In taking away life, it takes away all other rights and the chance to enjoy them.

I’ve noticed on a few occasions that the question “When does life begin?” has surfaced. And in every case the response is the same, “I have no idea.” By doing so, you then become a “hack” (as such is the term being used) and this basic principle is quickly dismissed in favor of what is perceived to be more visible issues further up the hierarchy.

First of all, in the year 2000, it is no longer a secret when and how the life of an individual human being begins. The widely used medical textbook The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states at page 2 that “The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous …. This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being ….” At page 18 this theme is repeated: “Human development begins at fertilization [emphasis in original] ….”

So in essence, this zygote will not develop to become a dog, a giraffe or a fish; only a human being. It is a human in the earliest form of development, and therefore worthy of his/her rights.

But even if, for some reason, one were not to allow the light of modern science to pierce his or her doubt about when life begins, what is one to conclude from that doubt? Suppose you are hunting, and you do not know whether what is moving behind the bush is an animal or a human being. May you shoot? Or do you have to be absolutely sure that it is not a human being?

The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, did not clear the doubt. Yet it chose to allow the destruction of — well, it didn’t know what.

Despite all this evidence it is still common to quickly write off those who are opposed to abortion as irrational, as T. perhaps subconsciously demonstrated when saying most sane people are accepting of some form of each side of the issue. Do I believe that “people should have choice in what happens with their bodies”? I do to a degree. I certainly wouldn’t support this statement were we discussing teen suicide. Also, not to the extent of considering abortion. Another body is at stake, and left without a choice.

I’d also like to respond to the comments that the term pro-life is “silly” and inaccurate. S., anti-choice is certainly NOT a more appropriate term. You ask any person opposed to abortion if they think American’s should have a choice in healthcare, and they will agree. How about a choice in education? Certainly. Religion? Likewise. Being American means having choices. However, should I have the choice of which of my neighbor’s properties I plan to forcibly take as my own? Nonsense. How about the choice of which ethnic group to oppress? Absolutely not! Nor should the choice of taking an innocent life be condoned.

And certainly not anti-woman. Has anyone seriously looked into the physical and psychological side-effects of an abortion or even the morning-after pill? Sterility, future miscarriages, suicidal impulses, ectopic pregnancies, bleeding and infections, shock and comas, perforated uterus, peritonitus, fever/cold sweat, intense pain, loss of body organs, thwarted maternal instincts, insomnia, loss of appetite, desire to end relationship with partner, exhaustion, loss of sexual interest/frigidity, weight loss, inability to forgive self, nightmares, decreased work capacity, seizures and tremors, vomiting, gastro and intestinal disturbances… and this is a short list. Abortion is the only medical procedure I’m aware of that causes harm to the body by interrupting a normal human process (pregnancy).

I in fact think the term pro-choice is quite ironic in itself. Abortion is not a question of giving a woman a “choice.” It is, tragically, a situation of women feeling they have NO CHOICE, feeling that nobody cares enough about them and their child to give them any alternative besides going to the abortionist. The woman feels rejected, confused, afraid, alone, unable to handle the pregnancy. Our society tells this woman that an abortion is a safe, easy, and legal solution. It would take too much effort to offer time, compassion, and assistance should they choose to bring the child to term. Besides, there’s a profit to be made in this industry. Just look at Planned Parenthood. This is true exploitation of women.

And all this is not simply an assumption based on my part. My wife works every day counseling women facing crisis pregnancies and I have acquaintances who console traumatized women from abortions: anywhere from the troubled teen to the rejected spouse.

Finally, as a reminder, pro-life does not gravitate around the issue of abortion alone, but promotes a consistent ethic of life in many issues: euthanasia, capital punishment, embryonic stem-cell research, poverty, war (yes, many oppose the war in Iraq including myself for certain reasons), violence, and others. Pro-life is not equated to single-issue voters, nor is the term anti-abortion appropriate since it is exclusive of these other issues.

I know many people on this list will be shocked or upset on what I had to say, and it’s expected. Having studied this subject greatly I simply felt the need to respond to T.’s invitation to “educate [my] surroundings”. It’s probably not often you hear from someone on this side of the fence.