(Untitled)

[kitsune_den]

This was originally written in response to pythia_akrypta's post on the South Dakota anti-abortion law issue. Like pythia, my feelings on this issue are so complex and conflicted that I feel a similar difficulty towards putting them into words. Because of that, this post will be very rambly, and I can't guarantee that my arguments are going to be

Comments

[gandolfcnc]

According to the Supreme Court of the US in the Case Roe v Wade Human beings conceive human beings. At the moment of conception a human being is conceived. So, legally, in the US, humanity is at the point of conception. This was the Supreme Courts acceptance of the scientific evidence. The findings in Roe v Wade were not relative to the humanity of the being conceived, but the point at which that being had "rights" and protection of those rights under the law.

For the first 5 to 9 days after conception the being is moving and has not yet established a parasitic relationship with the host. This happens to be the zygotic stage of human development. It happens to be in this stage that the highly publicized stem cells exist. If the conception was in a test tube this being does not become parasitic if it is frozen for later use. It is also durng this first week that the "morning after" pill can induce a loss of the monthly womb such that this being cannot establish the parasitic relationship and will pass out of the system and die. While some people do object to pregnancy prevention, conception prevention or inducing a period to prevent the hosting, I doubt the majority of Americans object to any of these choices.

Having had the opportunity to be reproductively responsible for 9 days with any of the above methods the reproductively irresponsible then allow the establishment of the parasitic relationship of the zygot which quickly becomes an embrio and then late a fetus and, if nothing is done to stop it, the fetus is delivered and that locale change of less than 1 foot causes a name change to baby.

When Roe v Wade was first ruled the name change did not occur at birth but at a defined viability date established by an expectation at that time of the ability to keep a premmie alive. Initially following Roe v Wade doctors were delivering aborted human beings alive and keeping them alive to use as "guinnea pigs" in scientific experiments. Since these aborted humans did not have birth certificates they did not have rights. Laws had to be passed to mandate the killing of the human during the abortion. At some point since that time the viability date has been attacked such that late term abortions for reasons other than the saving of the life of the mother are an issue (saving the life of the mother has always been a legal reason for abortion since long before Roe v Wade and is a false excuse for allowing late term abortions).

Personally, the one I find interesting is that the unwilling sperm donors are finally standing up and demanding their right not to have to have a child they don't want. Yea!!! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If women can have abortions, the guys ought to be able to have a virtual abortion.