I think the advertisement could be anti-choice, depending upon what all it says. I haven't seen it and don't even know if it's available on the internet yet. If it merely states that Mrs. Tebow considered abortion and then didn't, well...then it's obviously not anti-choice. However, for as much flack as it has been getting, I assume it has some sort of pro-life message in it. Such as, "It's wrong to abort a baby...and my mom knew that."
The rest of this post is mostly unrelated, but I was (somewhat) directed to post my stance on abortion here. And, of course, any time I get to spout my ideas to the masses, I gladly take the chance to be verbose.
Human life is protected within the United States. The only points at which a human life can be taken with legal justification are self defense scenarios and capital punishment. Some will argue that our rules for abortion clearly allow us to take human life, but those people have obviously not read Roe v. Wade; the Supreme Court refused to address the questions of what is life and when it begins.
Legally speaking, if you want to address the topic of abortion, you must address the topic of life. Otherwise, you are ignoring the fact that our laws protect life, and you would thus be creating contradictory laws by not recognizing the legal protection of life.
It could be argued that the question of when life is present is a subjective one, and that no objective resolution can be reached. I find this to be patently false. Even if it were true, our society has already come to a subjective consensus. That consensus can be found within the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA).
Traditionally, life was considered to be absent from a human when their vital signs (meaning respiratory and circulatory functions) were absent. This was changed with the UDDA. Now, a human is still absent of life when the vital signs are absent, but this is due to the fact that an absence of vital signs will certainly lead to an absence of brain activity; afterall, your brain can't operate without oxygen. This is why the UDDA also added the cessation of brain activity as the determining factor of the absence of life. Even when a human's vital signs are maintained by life support, they are legally and medically dead if there is no brain activity. Note the emphasis on no; a person in a coma has brain activity, and thus does not fall under the UDDA's parameters.
This is something that, to my knowledge, most people agree with. If your brain isn't functioning, then you're not alive. Thus, whether it can be objectively proven or subjectively agreed upon, life is brain activity. And brain activity does not occur until the second trimester.
Some people will argue that I'm not pro-choice because I still limit the choice of abortion to only certain trimesters. However, we must recognize that our laws protect life, and if we've decided that life is present upon brain activity, then a human in the womb with brain activity can't be killed by choice. If the scientific conclusion or the subjective consensus on life change, then we should reconsider when abortions should be available. Otherwise, we have a consensus on when life is present and when it is absent, so there should be a consensus on when elective abortions can and can't be performed.
If you're an extreme pro-choice proponent who thinks that an elective abortion should be able to be performed at any time during the pregnancy, then think about this: What is the difference between an infant five minutes from the womb and a fetus five minutes from birth? What about a day? Two days? A week? Where do you draw the line?
Ultimately, a newborn is just a nine month old fetus that is now out of the womb. Nothing developmental occurred during birth, and thus the living newborn is the same as the nine month old fetus that is about to be born. Thus, we have to draw a line based upon what we consider human life, and according to the UDDA, we've decided that the line is brain activity.
24 Replies
4580 Views