life - Part 2
Having probably offended a lot of people with my view of a woman's right to decide about her life and body, I'll add a conflict in the argument of those who are anti-woman's rights. I won't use the term "pro-life" because they're not for life, they're for power and control over people, and specifically women. I wish the pro-choice group would make this the issue than trying to defend their all-inclusive view of life than others' exclusive view of life. But that's another debate.
I want to argue they're not pro-life, only when it fits their concept of conception, and then it's their narrow religious interpretation. Listen to them on other issues of life and their perspective on life changes from life to other aspects of life, anything but the importance of life itself. They put the "problem" on the other people as if their life is not important enough to value. And you say, what?
The first example is war. Look at the war in Iraq. No one questions the support we have for the troops, and we can argue the merits about the war itself to the end of time. And what about life? Why aren't they arguing for the value of Iraqi lives? To them is everyone there is part of the insurrgency or a suspect of being related to someone in the insurrgency? The Department of Defense doesn't count the number of Iraqi people killed or injured. Why? Are they less important? If so, why are we there if not for the people of Iraq? When do we separate the value of people from life?
And what about stem cell research? They argue it's killing life, the life of a fetus for "research". What about all the lives that research helps? They're less important? I don't get that disconnect between a fetus and a person. And has been reported, many of the fetus used are from medical procedures. They don't count the many fetuses thrown away by fertility clinics. Why? Because it's ok in the pursuit of new life than from an abortion?
And what about violence and abuse against people, especially women and children? Those lives don't count? They'll argue about the rights of unborn life, but don't want to consider the women whose life was abused? And who became pregnant from rape, incest or spouse abuse or violence? They'll say that they're important, but then say they can't have an abortion because it violates the sanctity of the unborn life? Since when is the concept of life more important than a woman's life?
And what about the poor, low income, and homeless people? They don't count to provide help and support to improve their lives? I know many religious organizations help, but why do they argue against the government helping? They'll give to charity groups but don't want their tax dollars to help? Yet, they'll support a war? Support restricting stem cell research? Support restricting women's rights and choices? Suport restricting women's protections in bad families situations? It's ok in the name of religion but not in the name of the nation and its people?
The definition of life is rather broad and has room for inclusion and exclusion basded on anyone's personal values, but in the end it's still just life itself. They seem to forget it's about the present life than the unborn life. If we improve those lives, the discussion of the unborn changes to cover the rights of everyone to make personal choices, that is to have access to information, to make decisions, and get the help to make the decisions a reality.
|[Top] [Columns] [Home]|