Well
then, now that I have adequately exercised my creative writing skills, let's
start discussing. Should you go to Google and type in "baby survives
abortion", you would get a wealth of results; many of which are news
articles telling stories about the mothers of such children. You could
easily be on the internet for weeks reading and reading such stories.
Though the internet is not always reliable, the wealth of witnesses to this
anomaly prove that babies are capable of surviving abortions. Notice what
verb we use to describe what the baby does; the baby survives.
Why do we use that word, survives?
According to my cross referencing of three online dictionaries, the definition
of "survived" can be summed up like so: "to continue living
despite". And in order for someone to continue living through dire
circumstances, they would have to have been living in the first place.
You see what our own words have proven? I guarantee that you can find no
better verb to fit this simple sentence: "The baby survived the
abortion." How could you? We're not foolish enough to think
that the abortion somehow bestowed life upon the baby. The baby lived in
spite of all that had happened to it. It survived. And in order to
survive, the baby had to have been alive before the incident.
Many
people, I think, do not take the fact that I have proven far enough. I am
referring to those who only think the baby is "alive" when it is
capable of surviving outside the whom (approximately 23 weeks). I find,
however, that this logic is rather extreme. Consider an old person of
100+ years. By now, they probably require the assistance of advanced,
life support machines to stay alive. Were you to take away that
assistance, they would likely be dead within the hour. Does that make
them dead while on life support? Certainly not. While on life
support, they can still talk and understand speech. They can see, smell,
touch, taste, and hear. They can feel any and every emotion.
Clearly, they are just as alive as the rest of us.
Is not life support to an elder what the
mother's whom is to the child? If we only define "life" as
"capable of living without a crutch", we likely denote every last
person on earth as dead. What about people who require medicine
regularly? People who need a new organ? People who require
pacemakers and people who carry around machines feeding oxygen to them?
Surely all such people are just as alive as the healthy. It does
not do to dismiss weak, dependent life as not being alive at all. It is
far more accurate merely to state that the life within them is weak,
not nonexistent.
So,
that would make abortion murder, wouldn't it? Beyond any doubt, but some
people dismiss it on account of their belief that "it's the woman's
right" to abort the child. Now, in order for such a statement to be
true, the woman must have absolute ownership of the child's life. There
are two ways in which such ownership can be achieved. The first is that the
owner in question created the object in question. How does the mother of
a child apply here? Clearly, she is found wanting. It is hardly
accurate to say that a mother creates her child. The
child is created biological within her whom quite without her willing it to happen. Indeed, sometimes it happens quite against her will.
The second method used to obtain ownership
is payment. People pay large sums of
money for things that required large sums of money to create, and they pay
small sums of money for things that required small sums of money to
create. In the mind of those who believe in the woman's right to
abortion, the woman has paid for the ownership of the child by sharing her body
with the child. While that is physically demanding on the mother, how
does that constitute ownership? How does nine months of hardship even
begin to pay for the child's entire lifetime? Even further, is not the
child's soul a one-of-a-kind thing that will exist forever (depending on what
you believe)? For the mother to own it, she would have to pay with
eternity; not just with her life but with her very existence. And if she
did that, the child would be unable to exist.
Man
does not have complete authority of his life or the life of anyone else.
That authority remains with the Creator, (whether you think that is God, or
nature, or fate, or blind chance, or science, etc.) who put in the work to
create life; a gift so priceless it could never be bought by the effort of
man. The woman does not create the child, she does not know who he is or
who he will be. Her body autonomously creates the child according to the
design of its Creator. She is merely the instrument used in a process
that deserves far more respect and credit than it is given.
No comments:
Post a Comment