I am a master at really bad analogies or really bad examples (RBA or RBE for short), so I hope to not disappoint in the one that I’ll use today.
I believe that human life begins at the point when the sperm and egg join together; I believe that human life begins at conception. And when something is intentionally done to kill this new little life, regardless of how far along this child has developed or in what circumstances the child was conceived, that is a monstrously evil thing. Frankly, I’m not sure what is worse – the fact that many of the ways that abortions are done are so utterly barbaric and horrifying to think about (i.e. dismemberment, chemical burning, suctioning the brains out of a child’s head, etc.) or the fact that other – more sanitized – ways of killing children doesn’t bring about the same type of horrified reaction.
Of course I realize that what I just said has, for many people, put me on the whacko-mobile. I get it.
For years my understanding has been that conception means fertilization, and that these two concepts were virtually synonymous and there wasn’t really any debate over the definition of conception. Well, that is not the case, and apparently it hasn’t been the case for a while.
As I understand it…
Technically, conception (scientifically speaking) means fertilization. However, in medical contexts conception can refer to fertilization or the successful implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterus.
Why is this important? Well, because depending on the definition one chooses to use, you could say that Plan B or the normal birth control pill have no abortifacient effects. Because abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, and pregnancy doesn’t start before conception. And if conception means the successful implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus, then medication that makes the uterus inhospitable to implantation thus causing the fertilized egg to not be implanted would technically not have an abortifacient effect.
But, if you are convinced that human life begins at fertilization, then anything intended to prevent the baby from being implanted in the uterus (oral contraceptive) or from continuing in his or her natural progression (IUD/barriers) would cause the end of that pregnancy…the death of that child…an abortion.
Tomorrow the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is supposed to give a ruling on the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act. As I understand the issue, it is not whether or an individual can buy (or not buy) various types of birth control for his or her own use, the issue is whether or not the United States government has the right to tell an employer that he or she must pay for something that he or she is opposed to on religious grounds. In other words, if I owned a business I would be required to pay for (through the insurance plan that I must provide) the very things that, if used, would or could cause an abortion.
What if this weren’t about abortion? Instead, what if George Bush had passed a law requiring all companies to provide free or discounted beef to their employees? Now, there’d be exceptions for Hindu temples and maybe even Hindu ministries, but any Hindu charities or private companies owned by Hindus would be forced to provide this free or discounted beef for their employees.
Furthermore, in proper George Bush fashion, his regime was not going to budge on this stance, and that while individuals have the right to buy or not to buy beef, a business has no such right to make that decision.
This is not about President Bush, President Obama, Republicans or Democrats. I know that abortions occur every day. I know that. I also know that money from the government to Planned Parenthood helps to fund the death of babies. I get it. I don’t like it, but I get it.
Would I love to see all abortions illegal? Absolutely. And I will use my voice and dollars to try and change the hearts and minds of Americans so that someday, hopefully, Americans will want that too. But it isn’t about this either.
This is about a law that would force me to either participate in an activity (by paying for it) that is not just loathsome to me, but participating in something that is so contrary to my religious convictions that if you don’t have the same perspective you may well not even be able to comprehend how bad it is.
But suffice it to say this, it’d be worse than requiring Peta to provide free meat, bear skin rugs, and coon skin caps to all of its employees.
Peta wouldn’t oppose being required to provide these products to their employees because they hate their employees or want them to suffer. They’d do it out of a love for the animals that would be butchered to make those products. I’m not opposed to government requirement to provide birth control to women because I hate women or want to see them suffer. I am opposed out of my love for the babies that are slaughtered and my desire to have no part in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment