|
Why
not go way out on a limb and proclaim it? The answer is, it all
depends on what we are calling "life". Is something 'life' just
because it's alive? Is something 'life' just because of what we
suppose it will become? Is something 'life' if our Bibles and
other sacred scriptures proclaim that to be so? Are we all
talking about the same thing when we say something is 'life' and
try to define just when it began?
I will agree life
begins at conception, but have to ask, "The life of what?"
Spermatozoa:
Life begins in the testes, where millions of little pollywogs
struggle to find their ways to an egg. Those little spermywogs
are alive. They are life. Your Bibles say not to spill
them on the ground. They are precious. Don't flush them down the
commode, smear them on the bathroom walls, or cause them to drip
from the ceiling. Each is a potential human being, wanting only
nourishment and an act of love to flourish and find its own way
into the world, where evolution takes over to determine its
success or failure.
In
evolution, our spermywogs await a chance at the struggle to
prove who is the fittest. Almost all of them will not make it.
In any act of intercourse, millions will die from failure and
only one will, if allowed a chance, succeed at achieving its
natural goal. Speaking from an evolutionary, naturalist point of
view, it is a
 sin
to prevent that from occurring whenever and wherever an
opportunity may present itself, if we are to grant religious
credence to this at all. I'm sure you don't agree with that, but
ponder it. Look at it from the spermywog's point of view, if you
are able. Ask yourself, would you think it right to be made to
die of old age because of lack of love, with never a chance to
prove your worth? How can anyone justify saying "no" to any
opportunity to engage in the act of reproduction?
The
egg lies waiting in a uterus for
someone to come along with an army of spermywogs and engage in
the act of fertilization. Who or what would be getting
fertilized is beyond the scope of this essay, but the egg is a
cell, a nucleus surrounded by a living body containing all the
genetic materials necessary for the production of a human child.
It is alive. It is life, awaiting only an act of love that will
enable it to reach its fullest potential. Certainly, even though
a woman is limited to a certain number of eggs in her life, most
of them will form only to find their way into a dumpster. Their
potential for development will be aborted in all the kinds of
ways the Catholic Church proclaims to be a sin. Abstinence must
be granted the same sinful standing as any other reason, if any
of them are legitimate. Abstinence prevents conception.
If somebody's
compunctions lead her (or him) to prevent an opportunity from
achieving a successful union, under the same strictures as for
the sperm, has a sin occurred? If so, are those who induced the
compunctions into the sinner also guilty of complicity? You may
wish to deny that, but ponder it over first, and make sure your
reasons arise from more than just your emotional resistance to
an unheralded idea. Look at it from the egg's point of view, if
you are able. Ask yourself, would you think it right to be made
to die of old age because of lack of love, with never a chance
to prove your worth? Inducing compunctions against sexual
experiences prevents conception. The church declares preventing
conception to be a sin. |
|
Embryo: When love
fulfills its mission, the lives of a spermywog and an egg unite
and the magical journey of conception begins. The union divides
to form an embryo, and a new form of life has its start. The
embryonic stage lasts about eight weeks, after which a fetus has
developed. In no scriptural place is this stage of development
recognized as "the beginning of life" and we have not yet found
justification for calling it anything but "the beginning of an
embryo's life", a stage along an advancing continuum that
neither begins nor ends with the individual person.
If we assume the presence of a beating heart to also indicate
the presence of blood, this occurs in the embryo after about 18
to 21 days, a span of time that is well past conception.
Previous to this time, the ending of a life might be properly
valued as about the same as scratching off a piece of our skin
by getting too close to a briar, somewhat meaningful but nothing
to be concerned about, unless your religion has something to
declare about it, just don't get an infection. Still, look at it
from the embryo's point of view, if you are able. Ask yourself
with that in mind, as an embryo, would you think it right to be
made to die because of lack of concern, with never a chance to
prove your worth? Wherein is this different from a refusal to
engage in unprotected sex?
Fetus: Throughout
the King James version of the Christian Bible for a total of
some 400 incidents, blood marks the presence of life, as
exemplified in Leviticus 17:11, which says "For the life of
the flesh is in the blood…it is the blood that makes atonement,
because it is the life." Although this verse is about
sacrificing, the verses surrounding it support the message that
life arrives with the blood, a message the Christian
Bible repeats from end to end. This is the first stage of
development in which blood is notably present enough to be
considered "spillable", along with the development of an animal
form of some kind that starts out looking pretty much like a fat
lakewater fish. The human form slowly develops beginning in this
stage and continues on until several years post partum, but
brain waves are not identifiable until around six weeks. Those
reading this who feel sensitive to intelligence as a human
characteristic might dread abortion after this point has been
surpassed, might still ask yourselves if you should look at
abortion from the fetus's point of view, if you are able. Ask
yourself with that in mind, as a fetus, would you (if you could)
think it right to be made to die, with never a chance to prove
your worth?
Birth: Most
Christians differentiate between humans and other animals by
proclaiming humans to be in possession of something called a
"soul" that God is supposed to have given us at the inception of
our lives. In other words, when God breathes our first life into
our bodies, we are also given possession of a soul at that
instant. When God created Adam and Eve, the story goes as given
in Genesis, he brought their dead forms to life by breathing the
breath of life into their naked bodies. This represents a theme
common to the Bible, and even we secular people denote life as
being present in a breathing body with a beating heart pumping
its own blood (even if that heart is a mechanical medical
device).
Fetuses aborted anytime prior to birth become increasingly
harder for potential parents to justify the nearer to this event
it occurs, and even the hardest hearted among humans wonder why
anyone would wait that long. Still, even though the breath of
life is not yet present, with that in mind, looking at it the
same as a fetus, if you find yourself so capable, would you
think it right to be made to die, with never a chance to prove
your worth?
Murder: After this
point has been passed on any individual's path through
existence, aborting a person's life is now called murder. Even
though we mostly agree on how it is wrong to pull a trigger or a
knife to kill another person, we commonly avoid complicity by
assigning responsibility for various killing roles to our many
governmental agencies.
If "thou shalt not kill" is a valid command for us all to obey,
we all bear responsibility for any acts of killing we assign to
others. If a cop kills a robber, we are guilty for assigning him
or her to that role. When our government sends soldiers off to
kill or be killed, we are guilty for their assignments, for
their deaths, and the deaths of those whose lives they abort.
When our prison systems execute a murderer, we stand guilty for
assigning them that role, and so for their performance of it. We
the people, or those we chose to represent us, voted it so.
The least justifiable is the deaths of soldiers, most of whose
lives get aborted in their primes, many before actual maturity
has been reached. Those who end up maimed, in all the ways that
war tears people's bodies apart, ought to be included in that
sentiment, because their potential for personal achievement too
often ended with their injuries. With it in mind that lives get
ruined by war, and far more damage is done to the rest of
humanity, especially of those who love and associate with these
people, by the time they reach the age of accountability, can
you justify how it is more right for these people to die before
their natural time arrives, than it is for an embryo or a fetus?
For here is the summation of all of this: In nature, life
thrives from competitive advantage that must be demonstrated by
its own actions and skill, or it will be extinguished. In every
individual there exists the continuation of the past into the
future. All of each person's prehistory walks with him and her
as their heritage. All of their futures depend upon their
successful existences in the present, and so do all of the
future individuals upon their successful acts of sexual union,
for all of whatever future there will be. What gives any of us a
right to send soldiers off to die in wars, or inmates to die for
their sins in a prison (whether by injection, hanging,
electrocution, a firing squad, or however), and still dare to
declare it a sin to prevent or abort a conception? |
![[Visit Maeka]](../images/DMmaeka005[1].gif)
