.
Objections to abortion come in two “flavors.” The moral objection is that the fetus is a living human being, and anything done to terminate a fetus is murder.
This question devolves to timing. When does a human life begin?
Is an egg a human being? Most people would say, “No,” although the human egg, the largest cell in the body, contains almost everything required to make a human; the sperm, the smallest cell in the body, adds very little.
Is a human created the moment the egg is fertilized? Is a human created the moment a heartbeat can be detected?
Or when the fetus reacts to some stimulus — touch, sound, chemical? At what point during the pregnancy should the termination of a fetus be considered the murder of a human being?
Or, does human life begin only when the fetus emerges?
Despite the fury with which those questions are debated, there is no “right” answer. You can argue and present evidence until you turn blue, and you will not be able to prove anything. It’s all subjective.
We don’t even know how to define life, let alone determine when or if the end of a fetus should be defined as “murder.”
The other “flavor” is religious. Religions have rules that are couched in “morality,” but often have very little moral theme. Attending mass, eating kosher, covering your head, protecting the Qur’an, are not moral conscripts. They merely are religious rules, arbitrarily changeable, more akin to club rules than to morality.
Abortion is not even mentioned in the Old or New Testaments or in the Qur’an, though religious scholars have debated abortion for at least two thousand years, perhaps longer:.
Laws that prohibit absolutely the practice of abortion are a relatively recent development.
In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days.
Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment.
Only 3 years later a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early abortions. 300 years would pass before the Catholic church under Pius IX again declared all abortion murder.
In 1920 the Soviet Union became the 1st modern state formally to legalize abortion.
In the early period after the 1917 revolution, abortion was readily available in state operated facilities. These facilities were closed and abortion made illegal when it became clear that the Soviet Union would have to defend itself against Nazi Germany.
After World War II women were encouraged to enter the labor force, and abortion once again became legal.
Strangely, some people even object to the use of condoms, which seems to indicate they believe a sperm is a human being. Others object to “the pill,” indicating the egg itself must be considered a human.
In sum, abortion laws have little to do with morals or with god. They are man-made (as opposed to woman-made) rules related to genital power and national interests.
I mention all this because of an odd paradox.
Consider Planned Parenthood. It is an organization reviled by some because it provides abortions. But it also:
“. . . provides a wide range of confidential, safe, expert health care. The majority of Planned Parenthood’s services are preventive: care that helps prevent unintended pregnancies with birth control and sex education, reduce the spread of STDs through testing and treatment, and screen for cervical, breast, and other cancers.”
Think of Planned Parenthood as a tool people can use, not only to end pregnancies, but to prevent pregnancies, and to educate themselves about many aspects of human reproduction and health. In this sense, Planned Parenthood does not abort; people abort.
Why do I phrase it that way? Because of guns, and the oft-heard defense of guns: “Guns don’t kill; people kill.”
There are several reasons why people own guns: For self-protection, for sport, to prevent and commit crimes. Guns are but a tool, the primary purpose of which is to threaten or kill. As a tool, the purpose of a gun is determined by the user.
So here we have two tools, Planned Parenthood and guns, that are tools, and as tools, their use is not determined by the tool but by the user.
The purposes of Planned Parenthood primarily are educational and self-protection, and secondarily to kill. The purposes of guns secondarily are entertainment and self-protection, but primarily to threaten and kill.
A real weirdness is revealed when you realize that the people who most avidly defend guns often are the same people who most avidly oppose Planned Parenthood.
Another interesting thought: Those people who favor guns, while opposing Planned Parenthood, seem to care nothing about the aftermaths.
That is, what do gun owners do about people who have been shot?
What care is provided by, for instance, the National Rifle Association (NRA) or any gun-owner group, for the people who survive a shooting, but are left with horrible disabilities, disfigurements, and terrible pain? What care is provided by gun owners for the families of people who are shot?
Similarly, what care is provided by abortion opponents, for unwanted children who sadly often suffer a lifetime of parental neglect? What care do pro-lifers provide to impoverished parents trying to care for those unwanted children? What care do anti-abortionists provide to mothers whose health is damaged by an unwanted pregnancy?
Ironically, it is the abortion providers, not the abortion opponents, who are more active in “sex education, reducing the spread of STDs through testing and treatment, and screening for cervical, breast, and other cancers.”
Guns and Planned Parenthood: So different, yet oddly parallel, like two trains on adjacent tracks, running in opposite directions.
Do you favor all types of guns? Do you oppose Planned Parenthood?
Why?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.
The most important problems in economics involve:
Ten Steps To Prosperity:
- Eliminate FICA
- Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
- Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
- Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
- Salary for attending school
- Eliminate federal taxes on business
- Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually.
- Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
- Federal ownership of all banks
- Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9%
The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
I like this reframing. You are a very smart man!
LikeLike
Thanks, Justin.
LikeLike
The common unspoken theme in this topic is the right of the individual to determine his or her own fate. The individual has a legal right to use a gun. The individual has a right to an abortion. The law steps in when one individual steps on another individual’s rights. Unarguably, a woman is an individual. What’s in her womb is very arguably an individual. Unarguable trumps arguable. Until the cord is cut, there is no individual.
Political and religious power structures have always sought to stifle the individual. They want and need “group think” in order to survive. They hate individuality, i.e. not divisible or compromisable. They want divisiveness. Politics and religion are in deed divisive; it’s their modus operandi. This is why unions are despised by management. In unity there is strength. The power structure doesn’t want general unity. They talk of it, but don’t dare put it into practice.
Monetary soveriegnty is a form of unity. It states that we can be without war and that there is enough to go around thanks to mass-production technology, which Nature, biologically, has been providing since Day One.
The power structures fear monetary soveriegnty. They want money all for themselves, not anyone else. They need slavery to wages and debt. They fear freedom for all. But the combination of insurmountable debt, extremely bad weather, rising ocean levels, deforestration, pandemic overload, and all the other wrenches being thrown into the works, will eventually force government to throw up its hands. We’ll either have general monetary soveriegnty or an all volunteer, all cooperative, moneyless state.
LikeLike
Good comment. Yes, control is the underlying motivation.
LikeLike