Still friendly...maybe not so much nonsense on this one...
Wasn’t it interesting to see two men in a heated
debate in which nothing seemingly was agreeable, agree on a definition of when human
life begins? Yet, both managed to
polarize the issue. One by mandating his definition as law upon the masses, the
other proclaiming freedom of action without government intervention. Well, to a point.
That’s right, I’m talking about the forever litmus
test that is abortion, and I am referring to the Vice Presidential candidates’
debate held last week in Kentucky. Both
men, of Catholic faith, agreed that life begins at conception. Now, I won’t go on some epic ink spill
explaining this; one can wiki themselves senseless on the subject. Needless to say, there are galactic-sized
differences of opinion from as many sides that rouse Carl Sagan’s voice to
describe. I don’t exactly wish to
announce that I’ve academically researched the issue; that would appear rather
macabre. It may be close to Halloween,
but…
I am somewhat of the curious sort, and had a
look around the world for commonality.
And, surprisingly, I found it.
In all of the opinions, from various legal
systems, religions, special interest groups, medical communities, and so forth,
they all gave lengthy exposés attempting to define their position. “Life begins at conception”, “life begins
once the genetic code is complete”, or, to get graphically technical, “when the
head of the fetus breaks the vaginal wall threshold and…”. Well, hopefully you aren’t reading this while trying to eat your lunch. None of
these opinions, however, explained their reasoning utilizing the other
side of the coin—death.
Death is so much easier to define, and it’s pretty
much universally agreed when someone dies.
Brain inactive? Dead. No pulse?
Dead…or very soon dead. Not
breathing? Dead. So, why not define life as a comparison to
death? Seems logical to me.
Let’s see how that works if we use the above
examples that attempt to define life. “Once
the genetic code is complete.” Well,
your genetic code survives long after you’re dead, but that means you’re not
alive. “Once past the vaginal wall…” Okay.
I suppose the antithesis event would be actual burial or a trip through
the local crematorium? You’re
dead before that happens. At least, usually dead. And what about conception? That’s a good one because it’s subjective.
Life beginning at conception works for so many
because it’s the beginning of a process. The prospective entity begins the minds of the
conceivers as a hope, or perhaps a dream, or simply a goal. For them, that life began as part of a master
plan and subsequent execution of an action.
But what about those careless folks who made the grand mistake? They began the process unintentionally. It’s the same process, but the goal was
completely different. Life did not begin
because the conceivers gave it no consideration. This is a rather complicated subject to
express, but I will attempt the most laconic explanation possible.
For those wishing to produce a child, life began
with the consummation of their plan.
The memory started precisely at that point. As well in death, no one is truly dead until
they are forgotten. And yet, they are
very much dead, clinically. I don’t see
how the proponents of the conception concept can have it both ways. If “life” begins at the point of conception,
death, in their eyes, only happens once the memory is consigned to oblivion. Or, is everyone confusing “life” with “alive”? I don’t think the conception camp believes
both conditions must exist to support their opinion, so how do we arrive at an
acceptable legal solution?
I suppose that’s what makes this subject such an
enduring sphinx. For those that think of
life in the adjective term, it begins with the mere thought of it. For those that think in terms of clinical
existence—the noun—life begins when one is physically alive. And to me, someone is alive when they aren’t completely
dead. (Yes, I hear Billy Crystal’s voice
too)
Okay, so maybe “life” is easy to determine for the
at-conception demographic. The next hurdle
is the definition for the clinical types.
Is it: The moment chemicals
exchange? The moment of birth? The first heartbeat? The completed genetic code? Head past the threshold? Honestly, is it really that complicated? Take the concepts away and you get back to
the alive-if-not-dead determinant. You
are not alive just after your parents had sex.
You are not alive for a few weeks after.
With a certain degree of fortune, you are most certainly alive after
birth. Are you alive before birth, however? Theoretically, and in millions of
cases, you are alive in your mother’s womb and could possibly survive after
premature extraction. (We won’t get into
those reasons). Clinically, the
real question is, at what point are you on your own as a live person? To me, that’s the point you pump your own
blood—that first heartbeat. You are no
longer a tiny malignant or benign mass; you are a functioning being in your mother’s care.
Now, don’t go off thinking that I’ve made some
sort of stance on the act of abortion, I haven’t yet.
The vast majority, including the majority of
pro-lifer’s, agree that the abortion is warranted in cases of rape,
incest, and in cases where the mother’s life is at risk. By “life” in this context, I mean the noun
version. Incest, well, for the sake of
debate I suppose they mean "unwanted" or otherwise "statutorily violating"
incest. I believe those still constitute
rape since, technically, some incest is legal in certain states (Eww, New
Jersey!). Dear, dear…now Google’s got an
entry on me looking that up. Nice. Well, at least there is a consensus for
extreme circumstances. It’s the
consensual mistakes that are the problem.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where personal
philosophy enters the stage. The bottom
line is that there are two bottom lines.
The first entails your belief on when life begins. The second is when you believe government should
intervene, if at all. This part also
covers parental disclosure, consent, and involvement—another social imbroglio.
Me? I
believe the first part will remain the societal Dichotomous Rex, but I get back
to that tiny heartbeat. Regarding the
second on government intervention, last I heard, this was a free country. Sadly, I hear that phrase a lot less. Seems to me our little angels, including all
their problems, are ours until the age of 18.
Some Uncle Sam’s all right with me.
Keep the Nanny Samantha, okay?
Think I’ll have a 17oz soda now…
Break for Work
The training workouts on the run-up to begin
writing a certain sequel is in full swing.
What’s this? I’ve found it a good
idea to read a small book stack, write a few short pieces, and read another
stack before any real writing begins.
Ideas float, pinpoint diligence occurs, outline bullets shot and so
forth. This author will be taking an
extended break from this blog to concentrate on those efforts—elasticize the mind. I may run another piece around the holidays
if some random thought occurs with enough juice to warrant the eenk. (May I invent a word for electronic ink?). Please check Facebook for updates and assorted minutia.
A Scary Promo!
Remember those free DUST e-book giveaways? Since they were wildly successful, I am
running another. Get your FREE copy of
DUST for Amazon’s Kindle all day HALLOWEEN (10/31/12).
No comments:
Post a Comment