Life
What constitutes life? Does one need to be able to walk, talk, hear, or think? Does one need to do none of those? Let us assume for a moment that life is simply the act of being; anything that is, is in fact a live. A rock, while not alive itself, is made up of living organisms. Plants are the most simple of all life. Christianity argues that a thing must possess a soul in order to constitute life. That brings up another argument, what constitutes a soul? Aristotle debates this topic in On the Soul; he argues that there are three types of souls. Plants consist of a simple soul; plants have the sense of touch but not seeing, hearing, smelling or tasting. If you proscribe to the Christian stance, then it could follow that one must have the sense of touch to be a live. All souls possess the sense of touch; as touch is the chief sense of intellect. But this would eliminate the paralyzed that have no touch either from the waist or neck down. So we must amend this understanding of life. Aristotle does admit that the soul is the potential for and the actual work. Therefore we still have the paralyzed apart of life; despite the inability to actually perform work they have the potential for work. Thus all plants and animals are alive as long as they maintain the potential for work. However this possibly could leave out microorganisms. Unless we recognize that they can merge with others to create work. That is to say, the cells that make up a human constitute life by virtue of the fact without those cells the human would not exist. To destroy those cells would be the same as destroying the human.
When the sperm and egg join they create a gamete; the gamete is a living organism created out of the joining of sperm and egg, in short is a reproductive cell. To destroy the gamete would destroy the human. Let me restate this for all to understand; when a human sperm and a human egg join to create a gamete, that gamete is a human gamete. That gamete cannot become anything other than a human being. From there the gamete becomes a zygote; the zygote are two gametes. From the moment of conception the cells can be nothing other than human cells. To destroy these cells will in fact destroy the human life. The zygote becomes a fetus within eight weeks of the pregnancy. A fetus takes on the physical shape of a human being. We are no longer dealing with a group of cells; but in fact we are dealing with a human.
If there must be a physical representation of the soul, it would be the brain stem. As was previously made apparent, if the brain stem is destroyed you cease to exist. To abort a pregnancy after the first twenty-four hours, you murder the human life. Therefore abortion, if at all permitted must come before the brain stem is developed.
We will all agree that there is a law of nature. Certain things are illegal in the United States, Canada, England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, New Zealand, Australia and the rest of the world. There is no species of animal that destroys the offspring prior to birth. Such action goes directly against the laws of nature. How can humanity be contradictory towards the law of nature? Specifically how can America, a country rooted in those laws, go against them? The Bible, nay even the Qur’an says in sum: For if man sheds the blood of man; than by man shall his blood be shed.( Genesis 9:6) It is therefore unethical to destroy the life of a human unless they have destroy the life of a human. Even if you are not a Christian, Jew or Muslim it is contradictory to your reason to murder another human.
Therefore, if a human sperm and human egg can only create a human, how can we justify the murder of a zygote (a group of living cells) or a fetus? If you refuse to see they are actual human beings, those cells are potential human beings, go back to the definition of soul. Assume that the word work also means being. Let me give you an example, when you go to the local gas station those people working there are gas attendants. They are actually at work in the sense of being gas station attendants. Look at it from a larger perspective. A human cannot be a dog; upon your birth you are no longer potentially being but are actually being. Those cells may in fact self-destruct or the woman’s body may destroy them. Thus they are potential human beings, but they in fact do have a soul. Soul constitutes life for some 90% of the world. That soul only has the potential of being human; thus to destroy the potential human is no different than killing a human. How is this? Without the potential of being, something cannot actually be.
Let us now speak of murder of a fetus in the sixth month of pregnancy and beyond. In the United States it is illegal to have late term abortions unless the life of the mother is in question. There are examples of mothers giving birth as early as the sixth month, and the child survived. If the fetus can survive outside the womb, how can we say we ought to murder those who remain in the womb? A mother cannot murder her child after giving birth. Yet she can destroy that same child as long as it remains in her womb.
Thus it can be argued that abortion is unethical on basis that you are destroying human life. Regardless of when you do it, it is still murdering. If you terminate when it is only a brain stem, you are murdering it. If you hit a full-grown man in his brain stem and snap it, he dies. If you destroy a single cell organism you are snuffing out the life of that organism. If you do the same to a human cell (the very cells that constitute the very existence of a human) you are murdering a human. If you destroy a fetus you are not only destroying a group of cells, but are destroying something that looks human. It is no longer a simple cell, but in fact it is flesh, nerves, and blood that are all human. I will end my argument on the issue of life at this point.
Birth Control and Responsibility.
What is the purpose of birth control? Is it to actually benefit the woman in any actual manner? Is she going to die if she does not take the pill, the shot, or wear the patch? The answer is no. Birth control permits a woman to engage in sexual activities without needing to worry about getting pregnant. When you have sex and do not think of the consequences you are a moron. We hold a person for murder if they innocently take a gun, point it at a person and pull the trigger and murder the person. They ought to know that pointing the gun at someone and pulling the trigger could kill said person. When I was in fifth grade (in the United States this is 10-11 yr olds) we had sex education. We learned about puberty and what it means in concerns to the creation of life. In biology (which is taken in the United States in 9th grade, 14-15 year olds) you once again learn about procreation. Therefore if a girl has sex at 16, shouldn’t she be held accountable for the actions? We would hold her accountable for murdering someone with a gun. I fail to see a difference between the two, other than the fact one is legal and the other is not.
Birth control eliminates responsibility. It is simple, if you cannot have a child then don’t have sex. I realize this is a silly comment to make to some people, but it is true. You wouldn’t eat if you weren’t hungry would you? You wouldn’t drink to the point of intoxication unless you wanted to become drunk, would you? Why then would you have sex if you did not want to have children? Is it because sex is pleasurable? A lot of things bring us pleasure. Is it because you want to feel closer to the person you supposedly loved? 99% of 16 yr olds who have sex will not end up marrying their first sexual encounter. Is it because you like having sex? Mass murderers like murdering people; ought we allow them to continue murdering? Oh but sex doesn’t hurt anyone. Physically no it doesn’t hurt necessarily. Emotionally it can devastate a person. This emotional devastation might lead to them killing themselves or others.
Thus birth control is completely pointless to have. Fifty years ago teenagers weren’t having sex; that tells us we can encourage teenagers to not have sex now. The argument there is that people should have the freedom to essentially whatever they want. I would agree to some extent. An adult should be allowed to engage in whatever they wish as long as it is legal. An average 16 year old is not mature enough, nor do they have reason enough to make many of their own decisions. It is clear that most 16 year olds who have sex aren’t thinking about what might happen. Granted most single 25 year olds aren’t either, but at least mature enough most of the time to deal with the consequences. It is not unreasonable to teach abstinence only. Most single parents cannot provide properly for their children. A focus should be placed back on the idea of marrying someone you will stay with.
Population
It was recently argued to me that making abortion illegal is not necessary to see a positive population growth. Immigrants are eager to come to this country and work. Many Mexicans who come to America send money home for their family. There is good immigration, and bad. I will deal first with the good.
An immigrant comes to your country. They earn the language, customs, traditions, and laws of your country and become a citizen. These are all traits of good, or positive immigration. The not only contribute economically to the society, but also socially. They don’t come here to reap the benefits of the country and disregard those who came before them. There is a long history of good, positive, immigration to the United States. The first white people to come to this country are a prime example of that. English colonists arrived on our shores to build a future for themselves, their family, and their posterity. Likewise we have a history of German, Irish, and Italian immigrants in this country. They too came here and assimilated into our society. They have contributed much to the identity of America. They learned and obeyed our laws; the learned and adapted to our customs and traditions; when they didn’t know English, they learned it and used it. They came to make money and they kept it in the United States. They didn’t send it home to help their families. The government should always encourage this type of immigration. This is very much a positive influence on our population. We not only gain more bodies to take jobs, but we gain good citizens.
Unfortunately in the last century America has also had her share of bad immigration. From the south many Hispanics have come to America in hopes of securing for them a better life back in the motherland. Vincente Fox, former President of Mexico, was educated in the United States. Did this benefit the United States? No. Many Mexicans enter our country, both legally and illegally, only to gain wealth and send it home. This puts a strain on our economy. They are not benefiting our country economically. Many refuse to learn English or to use it. Others do not wish to learn our customs or our traditions, instead they wish for us to learn theirs. Our laws are not observed, and many don’t actually want to become American citizens.
I agree that good immigrants are a huge benefit to our country. It is important for a country to be made of natural born citizens. Immigrants only become so much of a citizen of their new country. Whether they are good or bad immigrants they do not necessarily become truly a member of their new country. Only their kids, or maybe their grandchildren are true citizens of a country. By true citizens let it mean someone who is heart and soul a citizen of the country. There are some immigrants who can become this type of citizen, and there are some natural born citizens who are not heart and soul.
Let me take an example of warfare. When you have a trained professional military they are more likely to fight to the death for their country. A militia will only fight so far as their own interests are protected. Finally, hired foreign mercenaries will not be the best soldiers because they have no interest in the conflict past getting paid. Let us assume that the trained professional army is the natural born citizen of a country; furthermore that the militia are like good immigrants; last, that foreign mercenaries are bad immigrants. While all three can in theory get the job done you want a professional army more than any of the others.
Thus, while it is a sound argument to believe immigration can protect the economy and welfare of a country, the best still stands as natural born citizens. Abortion limits the number of these natural born citizens. Let us also remember that abortion is legal in the United States for all persons who live here. Immigrants may stop the bleeding for a brief time, but the permanent fix is through making abortion illegal.
Stumble It!
