Dec. 09, 2000
Things for Thought: by J. Michael
First Things First:
Let's make it clear, we have Pro-Life, and Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice is waking up in the morning and choosing between the red shirt and the white one. If abortion supporters want the word "choice" in their title, I'll give them "Anti-Choice", because that's exactly what they give to each child that they terminate.
Having said that, if any abortion supporters would like to enter into discussion with me on the topic, you are more than welcome, as long as it isn't a hair pulling contest or some other non-productive disagreement. Serious, open minded conversation is always welcome. Stepping on toes is accepted as this indicates no boundary lines are drawn, after all, how can I pull you to "my side" if I have a territorial line separating us?!
Now bare with me on this. If I pass through the local chicken farm and take a freshly laid egg, I would be charged for theft. This is despite the fact that the egg hasn't hatched, the baby chicken isn't born yet. The issue is one of "productive assets". That egg is worth something to the farmer, despite the fact that the chick hasn't hatched. Obviously the egg is worth something as a food source, and also has further potential as either a meat source or another egg producing chicken.
So how is it with an unborn child? They have potential productivity, but no immediate worth? They have spent the past nine months creating mood swings and unusual eating habits for their mother, so she decides she doesn't want the God breathed child anymore. As long as he hasn't seen the light of day, she can legally "dispose" of him/her. Oh but wait, that isn't accurate anymore either, because even if the child has seen daylight he still doesn't have the right to life. After all, his/her feet don't know what a delivery room looks like yet, so we still have time to terminate.
So when does a child become productive? Those "terrible two's" sure seem to be quite opposite of productive, shouldn't we be able to have a "choice" to keep a kid after we've seen the destructive nature of a typical 2 year old? We at least deserve a "test drive" don't we? To see if we really want a child or not.
Or better yet, what if we want to raise a child and experience those care-free years with them. However, once they hit those seemingly wasted years of rebellion as teenagers, how about now we get rid of them? Teens sure can seem to cause more intense mood swings than pregnancy, don't they? And using your hard earned income to support the local burger king, while our tax dollars send them to school, where they never pay attention anyway. Then the weekend parties of destruction and drinking. But maybe the thought is, "we've survived them this long... a few more years and they'll be productive in the work world, so we better hang on to them now."
So how cruel am I to suggest the murder of rampant children and raged teens? Certainly doesn't seem any more cruel than the murder of an innocent baby - who gives the most tranquility as they sleep 90% of the time!
So is this a matter of productiveness? Perhaps, but likely not. It's an issue of moral degeneration in society. It's another transitional stage. First you can legally murder a child in the first trimester, then the second and third, and now, as long as they aren't fully born, you can still end his/her life.
A doctor could be moments from performing a legal abortion, yet if some nutcase comes running in and kills the mother and child, he'll be charged with a double murder. I simply ask, Why? Why can any person be charged with murder if they kill the child of a pregnant mother? Is it only a fetus if we don't want it, but a child if we do? Is a teenager a fetus if we never wanted it?
Take a look at what is accepted in today's society compared to 50 years ago. You'll notice an eerie trend of slow degeneration through multiple transitional stages. Am I to be told "get with it, things are different?" Or should society be told "get with it, things are different." Because things ARE different, but different isn't always good. Society needs to "get with it" and realize we are digressing, not progressing.
The abortion of a less productive society may be the best option, but who would perform such a procedure? How about the one that gave us life in the first place?
Aborting this email does not abort this message! Direct your thoughts to me: email@example.com
Feel free to pass these thoughts on to others who may gain use of them!
Copyright 2001; J.Michael