Best argument for choice I have ever read
By: Dr. David Diuguid: Biologically, life begins at conception; otherwise, none of us would be here. Having said that“life” cannot exist outside a woman’s body until at an absolute minimum, 20-24 weeks gestation, even with the current advances in modern medicine. Thus, the question, at least until that point in gestation, is (at least in my mind), does a woman have a right to choose what happens to her body during that time period? It is NOT as simple as murder, as much as the Catholic Church would like us to believe (and by the way, I was raised Catholic). I would submit that she does. In addition, it has been calculated that at least 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriage, mostly secondary to genetic defects caused by the complexity of getting egg and sperm to unite and form into a normal human being, or to problems with the embryo implanting into the uterine wall. That process has NEVER been considered to be murder, even though the end result is the same.
Moreover, bringing human life into the world requires not just a commitment to carry a child to delivery. It should also require a commitment to raise that child to an age where he/she can be an independent organism. Human infants are amongst the most helpless animals in the panoply of species (it’s the price we pay for having such large heads - children have to be born before they can care for themselves, because a woman’s body can’t support them for any longer period of time, and they won’t be able to get out of the uterus if they remain any longer). Most of the sociologic underpinnings that we live by in all civilizations on earth were created to allow children to be raised to adulthood, without being killed by other species. If we are going to make the commitment to bring all conceived children into the world, then it follows that we MUST make the commitment to raise those children to a point where they can be independent. We cannot, as Barney Frank once said of the Republican Party, follow the creed that “Life begins at conception and ends at birth”. I for one am not willing to commit myself personally or to commit us as a society to the monumental task of raising all of those children to adulthood, and if I’m not willing to take on that task, then the logical extension is that I have no right to tell a woman (or a man, for that matter) that she/he must do so. I find it morally far more outrageous to bring children into the world and then to not properly care for them.
RE: the question of sex, I would dare say that there would be just as much protest from women as from men if there were a call to boycott sex (look at the reaction to Alyssa Milano’s call to inaction). Sex is fun, not to mention a basic biological drive, and you will NEVER stop sex. The most that anyone has ever been able to do is to limit sex to procreation, and even that has been an utter failure in most societies.
This discussion ultimately comes down to who has the greater right - the woman carrying the child, or the unborn child. It is not as simple as saying that the child is always first priority or the woman is always first priority. The guidelines that have been set up following Roe v Wade (a case that I think was properly decided, albeit with shaky legal underpinnings) I think are appropriate given the biological and the sociological facts with which we have to deal. Having said this, there will always be a debate as to where and when to draw the lines, which will keep our legislators and judges in business until the end of time.
Finally, abortions have been performed since the earliest time of medical care, for all of the reasons noted above, and for many others. It has ALWAYS been the most common surgical procedure in any era of history that you want to look at. We can either provide access to safe abortions, or we can put the life of both mother and fetus at risk. Having seen some of the horrors of back alley abortions, I for one do not want to go back to that era."
By: Dr. David Diuguid: Biologically, life begins at conception; otherwise, none of us would be here. Having said that“life” cannot exist outside a woman’s body until at an absolute minimum, 20-24 weeks gestation, even with the current advances in modern medicine. Thus, the question, at least until that point in gestation, is (at least in my mind), does a woman have a right to choose what happens to her body during that time period? It is NOT as simple as murder, as much as the Catholic Church would like us to believe (and by the way, I was raised Catholic). I would submit that she does. In addition, it has been calculated that at least 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriage, mostly secondary to genetic defects caused by the complexity of getting egg and sperm to unite and form into a normal human being, or to problems with the embryo implanting into the uterine wall. That process has NEVER been considered to be murder, even though the end result is the same.
Moreover, bringing human life into the world requires not just a commitment to carry a child to delivery. It should also require a commitment to raise that child to an age where he/she can be an independent organism. Human infants are amongst the most helpless animals in the panoply of species (it’s the price we pay for having such large heads - children have to be born before they can care for themselves, because a woman’s body can’t support them for any longer period of time, and they won’t be able to get out of the uterus if they remain any longer). Most of the sociologic underpinnings that we live by in all civilizations on earth were created to allow children to be raised to adulthood, without being killed by other species. If we are going to make the commitment to bring all conceived children into the world, then it follows that we MUST make the commitment to raise those children to a point where they can be independent. We cannot, as Barney Frank once said of the Republican Party, follow the creed that “Life begins at conception and ends at birth”. I for one am not willing to commit myself personally or to commit us as a society to the monumental task of raising all of those children to adulthood, and if I’m not willing to take on that task, then the logical extension is that I have no right to tell a woman (or a man, for that matter) that she/he must do so. I find it morally far more outrageous to bring children into the world and then to not properly care for them.
RE: the question of sex, I would dare say that there would be just as much protest from women as from men if there were a call to boycott sex (look at the reaction to Alyssa Milano’s call to inaction). Sex is fun, not to mention a basic biological drive, and you will NEVER stop sex. The most that anyone has ever been able to do is to limit sex to procreation, and even that has been an utter failure in most societies.
This discussion ultimately comes down to who has the greater right - the woman carrying the child, or the unborn child. It is not as simple as saying that the child is always first priority or the woman is always first priority. The guidelines that have been set up following Roe v Wade (a case that I think was properly decided, albeit with shaky legal underpinnings) I think are appropriate given the biological and the sociological facts with which we have to deal. Having said this, there will always be a debate as to where and when to draw the lines, which will keep our legislators and judges in business until the end of time.
Finally, abortions have been performed since the earliest time of medical care, for all of the reasons noted above, and for many others. It has ALWAYS been the most common surgical procedure in any era of history that you want to look at. We can either provide access to safe abortions, or we can put the life of both mother and fetus at risk. Having seen some of the horrors of back alley abortions, I for one do not want to go back to that era."
