CzechPrince
03-14-2005, 03:15 AM
I have gotten so many compliments on my essay from last year (Thank you all again!) I decided to post it, feel free to use it or any part of it with whatever you need.
RIGHT TO LIFE ACT- Affirmation Introductional Speech
AP Govt. 12: Mock Congress
May 14, 2004
By CzechPrince
Is it really none of our business? Is it really not right for us to judge? I think it is perfectly acceptable for us to judge and for us to make it our business. There is an inherent misconception in pointing out that a woman should have the right to do with her own body what she will. The misconception in abortion cases is that the woman is not doing something to her body solely, she is doing something to the human being inside of her.
This should be the very first point of consideration, is the fetus a part of the woman’s body or is it a distinct person? A recent Connecticut Supreme Court decision ruled that the fetus is part of the woman, “akin to the teeth and hair”. This decision regards the fetus as a part of the woman because it can not survive outside of her and it has a biological connection to her.
I think that line of argument completely absurd. To assume that a fetus living inside the body is not its own body is completely ridiculous. This means that during pregnancy, the woman has two heads that are her own, two brains, two hearts, two distinct blood types (in some cases), two distinct DNA sequences, two distinct sets of arms, two distinct sets of legs and so on and so forth. I don’t think that is a fair assessment of a woman who is pregnant. I still am going to think that ‘she’ can only have one head and one brain etc. But let us look at the reasoning and apply it to other things we see in life and then come to a conclusion on the reasoning shown by the Supreme Court Justices is actually sound reasoning.
The first argument is that the fetus is part of the woman because it can not survive outside of the woman. This seems quite logical at first glance. But what would you say when I ask about a person in an airplane or submarine? A person flying across the Atlantic Ocean can not survive outside of the airplane. Taken out of the airplane, the person would surely die. Should this lead me to conclude that the person is part of the airplane? How about the submarine crew? If they were taken out of the submarine they would drown because they are unable to live in the surrounding environment. Are these people deemed part of the submarine and denied their inherent humanity? No. Neither case supposes that a human who can only survive for a small period of time within the vessel that carries hir is not a human. Why then is a fetus robbed of its humanity because it can not survive outside of the womb? It is almost laughable to think that it should be.
The second argument is that the fetus is part of the woman because it has a biological connection to the woman. How about conjoined twins? With Siamese twins there are two distinct people sharing a biological connection. We do not say that one of the twins is just another part of the other because of the connection, but we do it when we look at the fetus. Interesting isn’t it? I think it is rather absurd reasoning on behalf of the Supreme Court.
I think the Supreme Court ruling meant to highlight was that the fetus was part of the woman. But by the exact same logic and reasoning we can see that a submarine crew and airplane passengers sould be considered part of the sub or plane. Absurd, perhaps, but the reasoning is consistent. Consistent absurdity in all three cases. I would even argue that a ‘natural’ connection such as the umbilical cord does not mean the fetus is part of the woman in light of the recent invention of the artificial womb.
A fetus is a human and is alive and should be treated as an equal. Science can do some wonderful things these days. We are at a point where we can tell without a doubt whether something is human or not. The fetus inside a human woman is human fetus. Never has there been a case where conception between two humans has resulted in something other than a human. So I think it suffice to say that if a fetus in a human is a human. But some might suggest that it is not. Some suggest that there is something given to the fetus at some point that makes it human. Therefore there must be a humanization process...
[“ ... when people want to discard a baby they say to you it is not yet a baby. It's something which is not that. And they try to build a theory of 'humanization,' saying that in the beginning there is something which is living, something which is maybe a little human, but it is not a human being, and it is with the improvement of it that some day, by a humanization process, it will become a true human fellow.”] - Dr. Jerome Lejeune
Can anyone fill me and Dr. Lejeune in on by what alchemy a fetus becomes a human? I have been trying to think of what this process might be, and have come to the conclusion that there is no such process and the idea that a human in one stage of life is not as human as one in another stage of life is simply idiotic.
Some may wish to discredit me because I am a man. I will never know what it is like to go through a pregnancy. I will never know what it is like to be pregnant as a result of rape. I know this is a touchy subject to women, but my opinion must not be disqualified because I am a man. That is sexism; the same sexism that kept women from being able to vote for so long. Let us not be sexist and let us not say that the only people that can speak of a subject are the people who have been through the subject. Take for example rape and incest and murder. I have never been through such things, so should I not have a say in deciding legislation on them? I should, you should, everyone should.
A fetus is not a potential human being. It is a human being with potential. The fetus is not comprised of an potential heart with potential blood potentially pumping through it; of a potential body with potential arms and legs; of a potential brain with potential nerve impulses There is an actual human life inside the womb not potential human life. Life is actually taken when the fetus is aborted. Calling the unborn a “fetus” is a good way to dehumanize it. But in the end it is still a human fetus. Just as a neonate is a human neonate. Human life has many stages. But at no point is it not human life or only potential human life. And if we are denied the right to willfully terminate a life in the adult stage and the neonate stage, than we should be denied the right to willfully terminate a life in the fetal stage.
(Of course there are exceptions to every rule. Killing in self-defense is completely justified, as is abortion in the case where the pregnancy poses an immediate and real threat to the life of the mother. )
RIGHT TO LIFE ACT- Affirmation Introductional Speech
AP Govt. 12: Mock Congress
May 14, 2004
By CzechPrince
Is it really none of our business? Is it really not right for us to judge? I think it is perfectly acceptable for us to judge and for us to make it our business. There is an inherent misconception in pointing out that a woman should have the right to do with her own body what she will. The misconception in abortion cases is that the woman is not doing something to her body solely, she is doing something to the human being inside of her.
This should be the very first point of consideration, is the fetus a part of the woman’s body or is it a distinct person? A recent Connecticut Supreme Court decision ruled that the fetus is part of the woman, “akin to the teeth and hair”. This decision regards the fetus as a part of the woman because it can not survive outside of her and it has a biological connection to her.
I think that line of argument completely absurd. To assume that a fetus living inside the body is not its own body is completely ridiculous. This means that during pregnancy, the woman has two heads that are her own, two brains, two hearts, two distinct blood types (in some cases), two distinct DNA sequences, two distinct sets of arms, two distinct sets of legs and so on and so forth. I don’t think that is a fair assessment of a woman who is pregnant. I still am going to think that ‘she’ can only have one head and one brain etc. But let us look at the reasoning and apply it to other things we see in life and then come to a conclusion on the reasoning shown by the Supreme Court Justices is actually sound reasoning.
The first argument is that the fetus is part of the woman because it can not survive outside of the woman. This seems quite logical at first glance. But what would you say when I ask about a person in an airplane or submarine? A person flying across the Atlantic Ocean can not survive outside of the airplane. Taken out of the airplane, the person would surely die. Should this lead me to conclude that the person is part of the airplane? How about the submarine crew? If they were taken out of the submarine they would drown because they are unable to live in the surrounding environment. Are these people deemed part of the submarine and denied their inherent humanity? No. Neither case supposes that a human who can only survive for a small period of time within the vessel that carries hir is not a human. Why then is a fetus robbed of its humanity because it can not survive outside of the womb? It is almost laughable to think that it should be.
The second argument is that the fetus is part of the woman because it has a biological connection to the woman. How about conjoined twins? With Siamese twins there are two distinct people sharing a biological connection. We do not say that one of the twins is just another part of the other because of the connection, but we do it when we look at the fetus. Interesting isn’t it? I think it is rather absurd reasoning on behalf of the Supreme Court.
I think the Supreme Court ruling meant to highlight was that the fetus was part of the woman. But by the exact same logic and reasoning we can see that a submarine crew and airplane passengers sould be considered part of the sub or plane. Absurd, perhaps, but the reasoning is consistent. Consistent absurdity in all three cases. I would even argue that a ‘natural’ connection such as the umbilical cord does not mean the fetus is part of the woman in light of the recent invention of the artificial womb.
A fetus is a human and is alive and should be treated as an equal. Science can do some wonderful things these days. We are at a point where we can tell without a doubt whether something is human or not. The fetus inside a human woman is human fetus. Never has there been a case where conception between two humans has resulted in something other than a human. So I think it suffice to say that if a fetus in a human is a human. But some might suggest that it is not. Some suggest that there is something given to the fetus at some point that makes it human. Therefore there must be a humanization process...
[“ ... when people want to discard a baby they say to you it is not yet a baby. It's something which is not that. And they try to build a theory of 'humanization,' saying that in the beginning there is something which is living, something which is maybe a little human, but it is not a human being, and it is with the improvement of it that some day, by a humanization process, it will become a true human fellow.”] - Dr. Jerome Lejeune
Can anyone fill me and Dr. Lejeune in on by what alchemy a fetus becomes a human? I have been trying to think of what this process might be, and have come to the conclusion that there is no such process and the idea that a human in one stage of life is not as human as one in another stage of life is simply idiotic.
Some may wish to discredit me because I am a man. I will never know what it is like to go through a pregnancy. I will never know what it is like to be pregnant as a result of rape. I know this is a touchy subject to women, but my opinion must not be disqualified because I am a man. That is sexism; the same sexism that kept women from being able to vote for so long. Let us not be sexist and let us not say that the only people that can speak of a subject are the people who have been through the subject. Take for example rape and incest and murder. I have never been through such things, so should I not have a say in deciding legislation on them? I should, you should, everyone should.
A fetus is not a potential human being. It is a human being with potential. The fetus is not comprised of an potential heart with potential blood potentially pumping through it; of a potential body with potential arms and legs; of a potential brain with potential nerve impulses There is an actual human life inside the womb not potential human life. Life is actually taken when the fetus is aborted. Calling the unborn a “fetus” is a good way to dehumanize it. But in the end it is still a human fetus. Just as a neonate is a human neonate. Human life has many stages. But at no point is it not human life or only potential human life. And if we are denied the right to willfully terminate a life in the adult stage and the neonate stage, than we should be denied the right to willfully terminate a life in the fetal stage.
(Of course there are exceptions to every rule. Killing in self-defense is completely justified, as is abortion in the case where the pregnancy poses an immediate and real threat to the life of the mother. )