When Abortion Becomes Murder
Monday October 20, 2008
When does human life begin? It depends on where you live. While I don't like what that means for some states, the debate itself could be good for the future of reproductive rights and the sanctity of human life in...
Filed Under: abortion, amendment 48, biblical interpretation, casting stones, christianity, jewish law on abortion, politics, when human life begins
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Subscribe
About Windows & Doors
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of You Don’t Have To Be Wrong For Me To Be Right: Finding Faith Without Fanaticism. Listed as one of the nation’s 50 most influential rabbis in Newsweek, and a regular commentator on Court TV, he is the creator of the popular series, Building Bridges, airing on Bridges TV, and the co-host of the weekly radio show, Hirschfield and Kula. More About Brad
 IntelligentTalkRadio.com |  clal.org |
  |  |
I am not avowedly anti-abortion...I don't know what I think and truly have mixed feelings about the subject. I don't know what I would do if a daughter of mine were the victim of rape or incest or simply an unwise casual contact that resulted in a pregnancy. I hope I never have to face the issue.
But without meaning to, you struck a responsive chord with me when you mentioned drug and alcohol abuse by pregnant women. You see, my son, adopted from Russia as a baby, was abused in utero. ABUSED.... Before he was "officially" a human being, he was exposed to drugs and was born addicted to drugs. He was born needing a "fix" and had to endure the horror of drug withdrawal before he was old enough to understand what was happening to him.
I must admit that I become angry when I think that my precious, sweet and loving child (now age 11) was abused in this fashion. And i resent that this curious, inquisitive and interesting little guy must struggle academically due to neurological damage resulting from this abuse.
My son is a unique and special human being who deserved a better start in life, and while I won't weigh in on the abortion dispute, I must tell you, Rabbi Hirschfield, that the idea of criminalizing (with appropriate support and intervention) the use of drugs and/or alcohol by pregnant women doesn't seem preposterous to me at all. Not in the least!!!
Imagine this: A pregnant woman is in a terrible car accident and brought to the ER. The doctors do everything they can not only to save her life, but also the life of the child in the womb, who, because of the injuries sustained, might die.
A few floors above, there is another woman, at the same point in her pregnancy as the woman in the ER, but the doctors are doing what they can to kill the baby. They pull the child out partially, jabbing scissors in the back of its head, and proceed to remove the brain.
Why is one child's life precious and worth using every medical effort to save, while the other child is allowed to die a horrible, and very purposeful death?
It doesn't make any sense.. especially in the light of faith.
If God, in the Old Testament, condemns other nations for sacrificing their children to their pagan gods to win wars and ensure prosperity, then why would God say it was okay in this day and age to sacrifice a child because the mother didn't find the pregnancy convenient for whatever the reason?
I can't for the life of me figure out how people of faith reconcile that. I know I can't.
My religion (Judaism) does not have a blanket ban on abortion, nor does it deem life to begin at conception. Therefore, I will stick by what it has to say over other's opinions or the opinions of other religions.
About 20 years ago, Missouri passed an amendment declaring that human life began at conception. A smart-aleck young man who had been busted for underage drinking at age 20 immediately moved for dismissal of the charges against him, on the grounds that he had been alive for 21 years. The court did not buy it. Watch for similar Colorado cases.
Excellent post. I'm totally pro-choice, and find the idea that Colorado wants to put that question on their ballot unreal. There are, as mentioned in the post, no exact answers to that question...and if Amendment 48 becomes law, there will be many folks leaving the state in order to have the procedure,(if they can afford it) or worse yet, doing it themselves or going to a "back alley" for the procedure. There will undoubtedly be a number of hacks that will be happy to perform an abortion in a warehouse, or basement or other slimy place if 48 passes. I guess Colorado doesn't worry about Roe V. Wade, huh, or the health of their women!
Bob, are you in favor of a woman or child who is raped carrying the pregnancy to term? How about incest? Is pregnancy from a situation like that OK?
It always amazes me how soon people forget the basic scientific lessons they learned in school when they approach the abortion debate.
Scientists are unanimous when it comes to the basic fact that human life begins at conception.
Dr. Jerome Lejeune, an internationally-known geneticist credited with discovering the cause of Down syndrome, told the U.S. Senate in 1981 that scientists agree human life begins at conception.
"Modern biology teaches us that ancestors are united to their progeny by a continuous material link, for it is from the fertilization of the female cell (the ovum) by the male cell (the spermatozoa) that a new member of the species will emerge," he said.
"Life has a very, very long history but each individual has a very neat beginning: the moment of its conception," the famed scientist added.
Dr. Hymie Gordon, the former chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, agrees, and says, "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Medical textbooks also confirm the scientific fact that human life begins at conception, or fertilization.
"Patten's Foundations of Embryology," 6th edition, confirms: "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
And "Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects" points out: ""Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being."
This isn't controversial, but is basic science...
Steve Ertelt
http://www.LifeNews.com
Let me ask this: if life is legally defined as beginning at conception - the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg - will each miscarriage have to be treated as a possible homicide? Will doctors be required to report miscarriages to some sort of police agency so that they can be investigated to see if the mother did something to induce the miscarriage, thus committing a murder? Where does one draw the line?
Can I get a SS# for the newly conceived fetus? Can I use a fetus as
a dependency deduction on my taxes? Would a fetus be an eligible
beneficiary in an estate settlement?
Really - this is a huge redefinition of what constitutes a legal
definition of a person in the USA.
Regardless of the scientific argument made that "life begins at conception"...The question is really when do we legally acknowledge that
a human being has been born. To consider another scientific perspective: A fetus lives upside down in a sack of fluid. No human being can survive in such conditions. A fetus indeed may be a unique state, that can be considered a necessary precursor to a
human birth.
The statement that *all scientists* clearly agree that life begins
at conception is clearly too strong a claim.
The advocates of Amendment 48 claim that a newly-created embryo -- a single cell without any human attributes except DNA -- is a human person with a right to life. They wish to force that view on everyone, whatever the costs. Consider:
* Amendment 48 would make abortion first-degree murder, except perhaps to save the woman's life. First-degree murder is defined in Colorado law as deliberately causing the death of a "person," a crime punished by life in prison or the death penalty. So women and their doctors would be punished with the severest possible penalty under law for terminating a pregnancy -- even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.
* Amendment 48 would ban any form of birth control that might sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus -- including the birth control pill, morning-after pill, and IUD. The result would be many more unintended pregnancies and unwanted children in Colorado.
* Amendment 48 would ban in vitro fertilization because the process usually creates more fertilized eggs than can be safely implanted in the womb. So every year, hundreds of Colorado couples would be denied the joy of a child of their own.
Amendment 48 has very sharp teeth. Yet such consequences seem to be of little concern to the advocates of Amendment 48. They think that the men and women of Colorado should be forced to sacrifice for the sake these new "persons" in the womb.
So we must ask: Is a fertilized egg a human person with a right to life? The only rational answer is "NO."
An embryo or fetus is wholly dependent on the woman for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as an extension of her body, contained within and dependent on her for its survival. It is only a potential person, not an actual person.
That situation changes radically at birth. The newborn baby exists as a distinct organism, separate from his mother. Although still very needy, he lives his own life. He is a person, and his life must be protected as a matter of right.
So when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy she does not violate the rights of any person. Instead, she is properly exercising her own rights over her own body in pursuit of her own happiness.
For more information, visit: http://www.ColoradoVoteNo48.com
For a detailed analysis, see the issue paper "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" by Ari Armstrong and myself. It's available at:
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf
The sad fact is that Amendment 48 is based on sectarian religious dogma, not objective science or philosophy. It is a blatant attempt to impose theocracy in America.
Please vote NO on 48!
Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us
As a former maternal/newborn nurse, I'm always concerned how laws like this will impact mothers who are carrying fetuses with horrible disorders that are clearly incompatible with life ( i.e. anencephaly). An anencephalic baby only has a brain stem and can not live. Why must a mother be forced to continue a pregnancy that has no life outcome? Please understand right now I am only addressing the disorders that are documented as being incompatible with life. During my career as a nurse I saw viability of an infant change from "iffy" at 30 weeks to the current 22 or 24 week mark with all the inherent medical costs, lifelong medicla care, etc. Perhaps we do need to address not when life begins, but when viability can be sustained. I am pro-choice and wish the discussion from both sides would focus on the need for personal responsibility---which needs to begin when children are little.
To the poster that says it is basic science that life begins at conception, I disagree...the potential of life outside the womb might begin at conception...but not a sustainable life outside the womb for many months after that conception. The group of splitting cells is not a sustainable life without the environment. IMO until then, it is a not a person with the rights accorded to one who has been born. And as another poster mentioned...does a miscarriage count as murder?
Actually, it's just plain ignorant to say life begins at conception. Both the sperm and the egg are already alive before they merge.
Life on this planet began in the distant eons of time. From our temporal distance from that epoch, we can say that life on earth began once. So, if we are to use the beginning of life as the dividing line for protection of legal personhood, the logical extension is that lettuce and mosquitoes and bacteria and cattle are all equally to-be-protected legal persons. They are partakers of that same life that we partake in. Our origins as life-bearing entities are the same.
No, arguments about the beginning of life should be seen for what they are: totally irrelevant to the abortion debate.
We can choose to shape the debate on the basis of any of several other criteria: who gets to decide, when the fetus is viable without reliance on the mother, when the fruit of the womb wakens to human consciousness, or even a non-scientific belief that sexual reproduction, both its acts and its products, are sacred, some would say sacred mysteries, which are taboo to mess with, to name a few. None of these may reasonably be omitted from the debate. But the question of when life begins is a question that impinges on this debate only when the answers are given are false.
L'Shalom,
Chaim
Who says that abortion would be allowed if the mother's life were in danger?
The life of the fetus is of paramount importance. The mother would be expected to sacrifice her life raher than the precious little clump of cells.
Diana H:
If indeed I lived in Colorado, I'd most certainly be voting against Amendment 48. It has no regard for women at all. If it is passed (a horrible thought), there will be self-done abortions or back alley ones. Guess Colorado's leaders don't worry about such things.
The question is not whether life begins at conception, but who gets to decide when to end that life. 36 states have fetal homicide laws on the books. That means that 36 states recognize that if someone, other than the mother, decides to end the life of the unborn, it is a crime. If the mother chooses to end the life of the same unborn, it is perfectly okay.
We are pursuing a slippery slope with regards to our view of life and death in this country. Increasingly, convenience and money are the hallmarks for deciding who lives and who dies. For example, 90% of mothers who are told they are carrying a child with Down's Syndrome now choose to abort. 90%! And those who don't are even accused by some of "burdening society" by choosing to give birth to an "imperfect child". Killing off the infirm sounds eerily like other societies in our distant and not so distant past.
So, ending a pregnancy because the child is not "perfect" is now okay and even encouraged. Is it unreasonable to think that the next step is eliminating the one day old baby who has been determined to be imperfect? What about the one week old? The one year old? Where is the line? Why is it birth? The newborn most certainly is no more capable of surviving without someone caring for it than a 20 week old fetus.
What about children (or adults) who are born okay but who through accident or illness become "imperfect"? Surely, you don't expect a parent to be saddled with a lifetime of caring for a child whose brain is damaged beyond repair in a car accident! Think of how expensive that would be-- and the inconvenience! How can you expect them to make that sacrifice?
Do not think it is impossible. For a history of when it's been done before, you can read this blog entry:
http://downbloggers.blogspot.com/2008/04/bad-medicine.html
The age old argument..."When does life begin?" wont ever be agreed upon because everyone has an opinion.
I could never go through an abortion because all 3 of my children are miracles and to think of stopping the life of a baby/ embryo/ fetus is unthinkable in my eyes.
I watched my sister give birth to a disabled child when I was 28 weeks pregnant with my second baby. That baby was given only water and died after a long 3 weeks. It was horrendous to watch.
To the nurse who replied to this thread, I understand your views.
But still, I could not kill another helpless human being.
b'h
Who says that abortion would be allowed if the mother's life were in danger?
The life of the fetus is of paramount importance. The mother would be expected to sacrifice her life raher than the precious little clump of cells.
Not according to Torah.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.