A "Grand Compromise" or a Grand Cop-out?
In the July 11, 2004 edition of the Star Tribune of Minneapolis, writer Jim Boyd wishes to advance "A Grand Compromise" in the abortion debate, specifically in defining where life begins. The reason I write about an article from a newspaper that is so far away geographically from me is because it was listed as a op/ed piece on tompaine.com a few weeks ago. I am sure it was widely read, and widely discussed.
Mr. Boyd starts the article out about wether America is aware that she is known as both the "most devotedly religous nation in the developed world" and "the most resolutely secularist state". This introduction sounds innocent enough. The article spends a few words about what our founding fathers intended; a state dependent not on "the laws of God, but on the rights of man".
Only later in the article do we hear about the true intent of what Mr. Boyd is writing about, that of abortion. Mr. Boyd tries to justify his moral standing by stating that he has never seen a reason that he would have considered abortion (optional abortion is the term he used). He argues that the state has no business imposing the pro-life value upon any indvidual because of the debate about where life begins. The claim is that the belief of life beginning at conception is based on a religous view, and not a scientific one.
We know that there is no universal scientific agreement as to when life begins. Many believe that life begins at conception, others believe it begins after a successful implantation, still many believe that it begins after the heart is formed (sometime during the fifth week), and still some believe that there is no life until a baby is delivered free of the mother's womb.
The fact that there is no universal agreement as to when life begins should make us as a humanistic society embrace life at its earliest recognizable form, conception. The fact that during fertilization, two disparate cells come together, immediately start multiplying and set in motion a chain events that eventually culimates in a living person. Some argue that there is no life at this earliest stage because the individual does not contain sentience. If this argument was appropriate, then we wouldn't allow any life that did not follow our definition of consciousness. People in comas would not be life, those afflicted with certain mental diseases may also be denied life based on this reasoning.
Mr. Boyd's "Grand Compromise" is recognizing life only at the conclusion of the fifth month, the "point of viability" or when the fetus can be assumed to have a chance of living outside of the mother's womb. He then proposes to outlaw any and all abortions, with the exception to save a woman's life, after the conclusion of the fifth month. It may be laudable to outlaw abortions at any time in fetal devolopment, but then that misses the whole point of protecting life.
Anyone who has seen images from the new "4-D" ultrasounds will be treated to an awesome representation of life in the womb. The doctors recommend it be done after 20 weeks (18 past fertlization)(not yet 5 months). At 20 weeks the ultrasound shows amazing detail of the fetus, individual fingers, gender, even hair! When shown in movie format one can even see how active a fetus really is. Is this not life? The regular ultrasound my wife had at 6 weeks in her pregnancy showed an active fetus with a clearly beating heart? Is this not life?
Mr. Boyd spends the rest of the article advocating for such things as free access to health care for a pregnant woman and their children past birth and later, free head start type programs for children and comprehensive health care and education later. These are needed programs, but they should not be provided based on the definition of the beginning of life set forth by Mr. Boyd.
There is some merit to the closing statements of Mr. Boyds article. He states that America needs to truly re-evaluate its dedication to the life cause. He implies that we do not do enough to advance life after birth. He is absolutely correct in that. Our health care system is in shambles, we are now in an era of optional wars, and there is a lack of suffecient protection for the poor and the infirm. It goes without saying that "Corporate Personhood" as it is known in our country is an absolute reversal of the ideals our nation was founded on, but that is the subject of another discussion.
In the July 11, 2004 edition of the Star Tribune of Minneapolis, writer Jim Boyd wishes to advance "A Grand Compromise" in the abortion debate, specifically in defining where life begins. The reason I write about an article from a newspaper that is so far away geographically from me is because it was listed as a op/ed piece on tompaine.com a few weeks ago. I am sure it was widely read, and widely discussed.
Mr. Boyd starts the article out about wether America is aware that she is known as both the "most devotedly religous nation in the developed world" and "the most resolutely secularist state". This introduction sounds innocent enough. The article spends a few words about what our founding fathers intended; a state dependent not on "the laws of God, but on the rights of man".
Only later in the article do we hear about the true intent of what Mr. Boyd is writing about, that of abortion. Mr. Boyd tries to justify his moral standing by stating that he has never seen a reason that he would have considered abortion (optional abortion is the term he used). He argues that the state has no business imposing the pro-life value upon any indvidual because of the debate about where life begins. The claim is that the belief of life beginning at conception is based on a religous view, and not a scientific one.
We know that there is no universal scientific agreement as to when life begins. Many believe that life begins at conception, others believe it begins after a successful implantation, still many believe that it begins after the heart is formed (sometime during the fifth week), and still some believe that there is no life until a baby is delivered free of the mother's womb.
The fact that there is no universal agreement as to when life begins should make us as a humanistic society embrace life at its earliest recognizable form, conception. The fact that during fertilization, two disparate cells come together, immediately start multiplying and set in motion a chain events that eventually culimates in a living person. Some argue that there is no life at this earliest stage because the individual does not contain sentience. If this argument was appropriate, then we wouldn't allow any life that did not follow our definition of consciousness. People in comas would not be life, those afflicted with certain mental diseases may also be denied life based on this reasoning.
Mr. Boyd's "Grand Compromise" is recognizing life only at the conclusion of the fifth month, the "point of viability" or when the fetus can be assumed to have a chance of living outside of the mother's womb. He then proposes to outlaw any and all abortions, with the exception to save a woman's life, after the conclusion of the fifth month. It may be laudable to outlaw abortions at any time in fetal devolopment, but then that misses the whole point of protecting life.
Anyone who has seen images from the new "4-D" ultrasounds will be treated to an awesome representation of life in the womb. The doctors recommend it be done after 20 weeks (18 past fertlization)(not yet 5 months). At 20 weeks the ultrasound shows amazing detail of the fetus, individual fingers, gender, even hair! When shown in movie format one can even see how active a fetus really is. Is this not life? The regular ultrasound my wife had at 6 weeks in her pregnancy showed an active fetus with a clearly beating heart? Is this not life?
Mr. Boyd spends the rest of the article advocating for such things as free access to health care for a pregnant woman and their children past birth and later, free head start type programs for children and comprehensive health care and education later. These are needed programs, but they should not be provided based on the definition of the beginning of life set forth by Mr. Boyd.
There is some merit to the closing statements of Mr. Boyds article. He states that America needs to truly re-evaluate its dedication to the life cause. He implies that we do not do enough to advance life after birth. He is absolutely correct in that. Our health care system is in shambles, we are now in an era of optional wars, and there is a lack of suffecient protection for the poor and the infirm. It goes without saying that "Corporate Personhood" as it is known in our country is an absolute reversal of the ideals our nation was founded on, but that is the subject of another discussion.
posted by Mark at 5:03 PM
0 comments
