Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Nov 2000 21:07:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
885 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > > The removal of a non-sentient tissue structure from the body of a woman
> > > who doesn't want it inside her is not murder.
> >
> > Nice term "non-sentient tissue structure".
>
> Not to mention accurate.
Your term may indeed be accurate, but I think that it does not do full justice
to the inherent and latent qualities of the tissue structure. When confronting
the abortion issue from either angle, the issue of potential *cannot* be
avoided. My 5-year-old nephew was once inches from being aborted. He was
allowed to live and the characteristics of sentience, personhood, intelligence
and awareness which were latent within that originally non-sentient tissue has
reached the maturity of development. All life has a beginning - sentience
emerges from non-sentience, and as such the basic materials of that emergence
must be viewed in light of the design held within. All of us emerged from a
fundamental level of "tissue," but without that first necessary stage of base
material, none of the higher levels of being would be reached. Life emerges
from non-life - does it matter that the non-life that first exists in the womb
is yet a bare sketch of the form that it will later take? Why does it matter
that it is unaware and undeveloped when we know what it shall become? Yes,
sometimes an end to a fetus must be made - for reasons of health, in
circumstances of brutality - and this end is tragic. I do not argue that the
rights of life within the womb supersede the rights of the woman carrying it,
but what is the inherent quality of those rights? Humans must carry life within
themselves - it is an intrisic property of our fully-matured design. When a man
and woman make a free choice to create life, or even merely a free choice to
chance the creation of life, with the full understanding that the nature of our
being is that the life must grow within the woman (as co-partner), why is she
then absolved of the responsibility to nurture that tissue that becomes Alive?
(And of course, He must not be absolved of his responsibilities either.) She
has the right to create, but with that right does not the responsibility follow
to nurture to fullness the non-life that becomes like Her? That web of tissue
has a right for the its qualities that will soon become Aware. We make far too
little of that mere tissue.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
