Our biggest debate centers on life

by James Simpson
Potomac News
Friday, April 30, 2004

On April 13, Gary Jacobsen wrote a column titled "The state must work harder in protecting the life of newborns." I agree with his assertion that "infant abandonment is an intolerable situation."The state, however, happens to be the reason that children are so often abandoned. When women are taught that what they are carrying in their body is nothing more than excess tissue, to be discarded at their pleasure, it stands to reason that many may not see that big a difference once a child is born.

Our society has allowed, by law, for the execution of untold millions of individuals through abortion. And yet people are still amazed when news reports of abandoned children are publicized.

Of course, the debate will never end. It is really about "when" life begins. Does life begin when the heart starts beating (18 days), or when brain waves are first detected (42 days), or only when a baby is able to live without the aid of a respirator?

That last one is a tricky question. Our medical technology has extended, by months, the ability to save the life of premature babies. For all those who believe that the lump in a pregnant woman's womb is nothing more than excess tissue, only given the rights of an individual after it can sustain its own life, then all those "things" in the prenatal intensive care units at hospitals are no different than a cancer that has been removed from someone and placed in a Petri dish. An individual who went in and unplugged the units, according to the logic of the pro-choice crowd, should be held responsible for nothing more than the interruption of a science experiment.

My opinion is that life begins at conception. This is called a zygote. It is distinguishable from all other tissues in a woman's body by the fact that it has its own distinctive genetic code. Teeth, cancers and moles do not. They can be considered excess tissue. A fetus with its own genetic code is not - it is a developing human being.

What I find telling is that there aren't any women wearing shirts that say "I had an abortion," even though hundreds of thousands wear shirts that say "breast cancer survivor." Wonder why that is?

I also see lots of coherent bumper stickers with saying like "It's not a choice, it's a child," yet none that say anything like "It's excess tissue, just flush it." If the ball of tissue in a woman's womb is nothing more than tissue why is the topic so sacred?

Why are there far more women who are out there talking about their feelings of emptiness and regret after having abortions than there are telling everyone that they really should have aborted their children?

The recent march in Washington, D.C., was held by people who support the state protection of those who want to continue murdering defenseless individuals, incapable of speaking for themselves. This is similar to the 1800s, when many people wanted the state to continue protecting slaveholders.

Those who tell me that I can not defend the rights of individuals, who are unable to speak for themselves, are making an argument that is similar to an individual in 1860 being told that he could not defend the rights of slaves if he was not a slave owner. This is ludicrous.

Anyone who is pro-choice, or had an abortion, shouldn't be upset with how I am expressing my opinion any more than if I were saying that some people want the state to continue protecting the murderous dentists who want to keep pulling teeth, which are incapable of speaking for themselves.

But my guess is that there is a difference. And if there weren't, some folks wouldn't be reading this column getting really steamed. Those who are upset at my assertions, ask yourself - what causes that anger? Look in the proverbial mirror when you do - for if I was writing this entire column about the protection of the rights and lives of teeth or moles or cancer you would think I was a kook, and pass it off as trite.

Getting back to the consequences of a nation which teaches young women that abortions are not an extermination of life, but merely a way of avoiding the responsibility of ones actions. What should we expect from someone who has a child and is not prepared for the responsibility? Of course they are going to feel no more regard for it than an old shoe.

After all, an infant isn't much different than it was a month or two earlier as a full term fetus. It can't defend itself. It can't survive on its own. To those who are not taught a respect for all life - it is nothing more than a nuisance.

Heck, there are many who believe that it should be legal to suck out the brains of babies up to the point that a fetus is half way out of its mother. When this is the message young women hear is it any surprise that a woman would abandon her child without any regard for its life?

James Simpson lives in Lake Ridge.