Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Fletch Pro Life Month - The Ecology of Abortion

Photo of foetus smiling at 17 weeks.
October is Pro Life month, so I thought I'd post about some things I'd been thinking about recently; namely, about ecology. Well first, what does ecology mean? According to the dictionary, it is -
the branch of biology dealing with the relations and interactions between organisms and their environment, including other organisms.
OK, so that's when I started thinking about some of these "greenies", or environmentalists. Why would many of them accept abortion? Let's imagine a scenario: What if there was a marshland that someone wanted to clear and build on, but there were some nesting ducks in the way. The ducks flew off with the noise of the approaching bulldozers, leaving their eggs behind, and the developers just wanted to bulldoze right over the nests and crush the eggs because they weren't convenient being where they were. They were in the way.

Wouldn't environmentalists be jumping up and down and loudly complaining that the natural ecology wasn't being respected, was being disturbed by man and that you can't just kill eggs that way because they will hatch into ducks? That it was unnatural, and an invasion of the environment, which must always be respected.

How is this different from abortion? From the natural ecology of the body? What gives man the right to go in to the environment of the womb, and disturb the natural ecological process happening there by killing and removing the growing life, just for (9 times out of 10) reasons of convenience? Just because he can? And yet these same environmentalists would get livid at another natural ecology being violated.

That seems very hypocritical to me.

ps, link to story of smiling foetus at 17 weeks, pictured above,  HERE

8 comment(s):

Anonymous said...

false analogy.

In the first scenario, the duck is given no choice in the matter.

In the second, the the woman DOES have a choice, and yet you would deny her that choice when you are merely a disinterested bystander.

I.M Fletcher said...

LRO, I'm talking about on purely ecological grounds in this example.

The body's system is a little environment or ecosystem by itself, and yet we let man in there for destructive purposes for spurious reasons. One might say there is also a similarity in that the developer owns the land and so thinks he has a right to do whatever he likes to whatever is on that land, even though the duck eggs are separate life forms bound to the ecology.

Similarly, many women think that because they "own" their bodies that they have a right to dispose of whatever life forms (and they are separate, independent life forms) are on their "land".

Well, they don't.

Anonymous said...

It's STILL a false analogy.

The marshalnad is not a sentient being; the woman is.

landownwers often do things that have an adverse impact on other life forms, not just duck eggs, but weeds, insects, etc. They are disposed of without care.

If a woman doesn't own her body, who does? You?

You seem to think that you have the right to determine what any and all woman may desire, in fact, by the flawed use of your ecology example, you seem to see a woman as no more than an incubator.

Acolyte of Saint Diego Maradona said...

Don't expect abortionists to have a developed sense of logic and reason because they don't. They tell themselves that abortion is not the destruction of a life and then proceed from there. Arguments about choice, womens rights, and so on, are irrelevant and beside the point.

Anonymous said...

Hey is anyone here planning on going to the All For Life 2010 conference in Nelson at the end of October? I'm hoping to get there and I'd love to catch up with folks.

I.M Fletcher said...

LRO, of course a woman owns her body, but the life within her surely must have rights to it's own body, chief among those being the basic right to exist. Who has the right to say if another human is allowed to exist or not?

Anonymous said...

Fletch, I wasn't attempting to debate the rights or wrongs of abortion, simply pointing out how flawed I saw your analogy to be.

But, let's get down to it.

Who has the right to say if another human is allowed to exist or not?

Yes, who? You? me?

Its a decision made almost daily. Its a decision a government makes when it chooses to wage war or to execute. Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall you arguing in favour of war and capital punishment at various times.

Who is to say that an embryo is a human? the science doesn't seem to show that it is.

Why do you think you have some right to tell a raped child she must carry the rapist's child? A mother that she must give birth to a defective baby, that will suffer itself, bring suffering to its parents, and all too soon die?

BTW - as it is an embryo, how can be sure that IS a smile, and not just the shape of the mouth at that particular moment? Emoting much?

Anonymous said...

Last para - embryo = foetus.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.