I’m still talking about this article, where a woman who was Pro-Choice decided to become Pro-Life and why.
In the article, she mentions the Supreme Court case, Stenberg v. Carhart. This case dealt with the legality of partial abortion, but she mentioned it in her story because of some of the shocking descriptions in it.
From her article (the text in single quotes are taken directly from the court case):
“‘[W]hen you pull out a piece of the fetus, let’s say, an arm or a leg and remove that, at the time just prior to removal of the portion of the fetus…the fetus [is] alive.’ He said that he has observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with “extensive parts of the fetus removed.’”
According to the decision in Roe v. Wade, the fetus can be aborted until viability, which is the ability of the fetus to live outside of the womb. This is said to be at about 28 weeks, but could occur as early as 24 weeks.
Seeing this, I did a bit of research on what the development of a baby is at different points in the pregnancy...
At the embryonic stage, starting at five weeks, the placenta (the sac that holds the embryo/fetus) develops and the embryo starts receiving oxygen and nutrition through it. At eight weeks, the arms and legs are growing. The feet and hand ‘buds’ have appeared. The mouth and nostrils are starting to develop. Teeth are developing under gums. Eyes can be seen. Just one week later, at nine weeks, cartilage and bones begin to form.
Do I need to continue?
At ten weeks, the embryo is now called a fetus. Muscles starting their development. The jaw is in place and the nose and ears are clearly visible. Fingerprints are evident in the skin.
All that is just by ten weeks. Ten Weeks! That’s still 14 weeks earlier than the earliest cut off for abortion. That’s three and a half months earlier. That’s almost as long as one semester in college.
I just can’t wrap my head around how people don’t think of embryos and fetuses as babies. Yes, they can’t live outside of the womb, but babies and toddlers can’t live by themselves either. If you go by the thought that an embryo/fetus isn’t a living baby because it isn’t self sustaining, then if that definition is applied to babies/toddlers they shouldn’t be seen as a living human.
What also really caught my attention is that by ten weeks the fetus has fingerprints. Fingerprints.
Fingerprints are used in our society to identify people. Fingerprints are part of a person’s identity. How can a fetus (a baby) have an identity, but not be alive?
How is it okay to abort a human that has developed cartilage, bones, muscle, teeth, a mouth, a nose, ears? Those are all very human aspects, but the fetus and especially the embryo are seen as not a actual life. How in the world doesn’t that make any sort of sense?
The more we understand about fetal development, the more troubling this all gets. The level of understanding of human development has grown so much since Roe v. Wade, which is part of why we've had so many restrictions on abortion since.
ReplyDeleteOne piece of history that's worth learning - look up the history of abortion laws as it relates to "quickening." For much of western history, it was somewhat acceptable for women to take abortifacients as long as it happened before the baby started to move in the womb. Do you think those women were murderers, or just operating as best as they could with limited knowledge?
Now our science tells us that there's no biological distinction between fetal stages of development - from the moment egg and sperm meet, you have a biologically unique entity. Which happens days or even a week before a woman is technically pregnant - which makes the language here even more difficult! I am firmly in the camp of people who believe that life begins at conception, and the more I read - lobbying efforts from the ACOG to redefine when pregnancy was, the way that Norma McCorvey was USED for the Roe v Wade case, the reasoning that goes on in the Supreme Court cases - the more disgusted I am with the pro-choice camp.
One line of reasoning you'll see is that a fetus is acknowledged as a pseudo-person - not deserving of full rights yet, but building up to it. And since the mother is a fully-fledged human, she has more claim to rights than a first-trimester fetus. Another troubling argument - dare I say morally reprehensible - but it's not out of line with what the rest of our society does.
Our society, as a whole, places a greater value on some lives based on how much money you have, or a lesser value if you've violated the laws of our country. In healthcare, it's not a black-and-white binary decision like "do we abort or not". It's spread out over time. You have money? You can afford preventative healthcare and medications for chronic conditions; you can afford health insurance; if you're wealthier, you can afford experimental treatments, travel to the specialists you need, and whatever it takes to be treated. You can afford genetic testing and preventative mastectomies.
Americans don't place an equal value on every life - perhaps we pay lip service to it, but in REALITY, it's not what happens.
The "Obamacare death panels" which became a conservative talking point when the ACA was debated have been a de facto reality in private insurance companies. Look up the coverage of Nataline Sarkisyan - that's one of the more well known cases - and there's millions of other lesser stories of coverage and claims being denied.
Then there's the issue of the dealth penalty; nobody debates the humanity of a felon, yet we claim that our legal system has the right to end a human life. We still treat those who commit homocide as humans - they are treated reasonably well in prison and guaranteed that the execution is HUMANE.
So again, we are not a country that values life in every single case.
If we don't value the lives of those who have already been born, why would we give the unborn any special treatment?