(CNN) -- South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed a bill Monday that bans nearly all abortions in the state, legislation in direct conflict with the Supreme Court that legalized abortion in 1973.
"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society," said a statement.
I just don't get society. Really. The flip-flop nature of our judgements and the necessity for approval lead us to do some strange things. On one hand, you have people still trying to figure out whether fetuses are capable of classification as members of society - because one interpretation of the Bible defines social existence from the point of birth, and not conception. If not, then abortion would be as bad as tossing out a bad egg. As the superior race, we have no issues questioning the fact that live, grown animals are still being hunted for game, but make it a big deal discussing the doing-away-with of unborn human fetuses. Terrorism and related devastation leads you to believe that all that remains at the end - is faded memories. There is no concept of retributive justice. Waging a war on a nation does not avenge a massacre of innocents. And while society is all wrapped up in dealing with issues that puppetmasters cast before them like biased dice, the supremos themselves are busy in modifying the destiny of the world to their political convenience. What fate hath wrought?
1 comment:
Upon further thought... --to add:
Does a fetus with a pumping heart and moving limbs have feelings that need to be protected? How do we classify life and death? The ethical dilemma is a controversy at even the blastocyst stage...
This is an excerpt from my Stem Cell Research paper (April, 2005):
"A common misconception exists about the way in which embryonic stem cells are obtained. They are not obtained for aborted fetuses. All embryonic stem cell lines are obtained from 5-day old embryos (blastocysts), which are usually obtained from donations by couples after they undergo an In Vitro Fertilization procedure. These embryos are left over after blastocysts are chosen to be implanted in a female’s uterus and thus are no longer needed by the couple or anybody else and would be discarded or left in a freezer. So many scientists want to make use of these blastocyst cells and extract embryonic stem cells from them so that these cells can have a justifiable pursuit and be able to save someone else’s life.
However, the Catholic Church and many other conservative groups believe that this practice is wrong and that an embryo is a living being and has the potential to develop into a human and thus it would be wrong to take one human’s life to save another. The fact that these embryos would be discarded anyway and be left to die by nature is not enough reason for them to allow the embryos to be killed by scientists when they extract stem cells from them. They believe that the soul comes into a cell at conception and life begins with a single cell. With this line of thinking, then abortions and in-vitro fertilization procedures would be deemed immoral as well and not be carried out as such common practices. Although, scientists would agree that the cells are indeed living, they do not believe that these cells can feel or have a thought process as it doesn’t have a neurovascular system. Moreover, these cells do not communicate and respond to the environment, which is the current definition of defining death today; when a body can no longer communicate with the outside world. Even when a body reaches such a point, there are still a significant number of cells that are still living in the body but it has no way of communicating to the world, thus death is declared. So even though these blastocyst cells are considered to be living, as plants are considered to be living, one cannot say that these cells or plants have any feelings, interests, or rights to be protected.
Despite the definitions set by science, the views of these people must be respected. Thus in his speech on August 9th, 2001 President Bush announced his decision banning creating embryos for research purposes. The only stem cells that he would allow federal funds to be used for are for stem cell lines that already exist, in which the embryos have already been destroyed, and where a life and death decision has already been made..." (much more to say about Bush, his policies and its impacts on providing adequate healthcare; ask me for my paper if interested...)
If a blastocyst's rights are being protected, then does a fetus with a neurovascular system that can indeed respond to sounds and touch in its environment have its right to life?
How are you going to force a woman to carry a growth in her abdomen for nine months, which is sure to make her sick and keep her awake through countless nights only to have it then burst through her hole and deform her figure, when she doesn't want to? To a woman, who doesn’t want a baby, it is merely a tumor growing inside of her that will destroy her life; a tumor that doctors have an obligation to liberate her from under their oaths to provide the best healthcare there is.
While I do respect the views of the conservative groups, being a pro-choice activist myself, I have to say that banning abortion is sure to take more lives than it opts to save. We will be taking our society back to a time where a woman would have to stick a metal wire up her cervix to induce a self-abortion because her insurance won’t comply, with her most probable fate being: hemorrhaging to death in the local ER.
As a student doctor, I pray that they don't make things worse for us and our patients. Sometimes, we bring our own fates upon us...
(Recommended Reading: A Case of Need by Michael Crichton)
Post a Comment