National Sanctity of Human Life Day

The Republicans should back off and let men marry men; women marry women, and totally legalize abortion. In three generations there will be no Democrats. -Ray's suggestion


Well....it's the 33rd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Here's how Daily Kos chooses to celebrate it.

This is how Mary at Freedom Eden chose to talk about it.

Me? I've always been conflicted on this issue. I have been leaning more and more conservative- especially in regards to Roe v. Wade. There is no privacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, is there? If Roe v. Wade ever gets struck down, I won't shed a tear over it, as I believe it is a Constitutionally weak ruling. Abortion should be voted on by the people, on a state by state basis. If I am wrong, tell me. I really haven't done much thinking or research on this.

I think what would clinch my positioning on abortion would be if anyone could ever satisfactorily answer this question: At what stage of development does human life truly begin? I mean human consciousness? A soul? When is the fetus a human baby, and not just so much tissue and goo?

Because I am lazy on this topic, and am only choosing to talk about it because of the anniversary, I will reprint what I've posted previously on a message board:

I have a problem with the terms, "pro-lifers"....."pro-choice". With the former, it implies the other side is against life.... the life of the fetus. This doesn't take into account the life of the woman as well as the lives of others who may be affected as much by the birth as well as by the non-birth of the child.

"Pro-choice" bugs me, because often, the more accurate term really should be "pro-abortion". The only good reason to be against abortion, is the belief that the fetus is a human life- not just some "thing" growing inside. It's easier to dispose of the fetus and support abortion if you don't acknowledge it as an innocent human being.

Given that one stands to be against abortion on the grounds of innocent life...why do some make exceptions in the case of rape and incest? Certainly, it might be terrible for the woman to be victimized every day by having to see a baby's face that reminds her of the rapist and the violence done to her. But it would not change the fact that the fetus/baby is still an innocent in all of this. It is a helpless victim, with zero say in the matter.

I think the crux of the argument really is this: At what point is that "thing" growing inside a woman's body, a living, feeling human being? It's easier to be pro-abortion if you "dehumanize" the fetus.

And why on earth wouldn't you want to place restrictions on aborting a fetus when it's in its last trimester? The only logical reason for aborting that late in the game that I can think of is if the mother's health is in jeopardy.

The 23 chromosomes of the sperm meet with the 23 chromosomes of the ovum and form a new 46 chromosome cell.

Within 30 hours of insemination the first cell division takes place.

From there the cell continues to divide at a rapid pace.

Within 5-9 days of fertilization the new baby will travel down the Fallopian tube and implant into the wall of the mother's uterus.

At 10-14 days the new baby sends the mother a message that she is pregnant by creating a hormone that suppresses the mother's menstrual period.

Four days later the little baby's heart begins to form and the eyes will be soon to follow.

At 20 days the foundations of the brain, spinal cords, and nervous system are laid.

At 24 days the heart begins to beat!


Only 1% of abortions are performed because of rape or incest;

1% because of fetal abnormalities;

3% due to the mother's health problems.

That's according to a pro-lifer and I'm not sure where she gets that from.

Planned Parenthood bugs the crap out of me. What parenthood? It should be "Planned UnParenthood". Why can't they push for the virtues of abstinence as hard as they do for condoms? Both are important.

I do believe that a woman does have more say in the matter of abortion because it will be the woman who bears the burden of carrying that child. I think there is no question that the woman has greater say in the matter than the father because it is the woman's body. She is the one who will endure carrying for 9 months. Not the father. He has it easy. He should have some say, but unless you can think of some sort of extraordinary circumstance, it shouldn't override the will of the woman. It's disgusting how many men just walk away scott-free of "burdening" themselves of parenthood, both financially and emotionally in their kids lives. How many single moms and their kids find themselves abandoned by a guy who does not understand what it truly means to be a man?

With all that said, I should make mention of Freakonomics, which contends that the rise in the number of abortions has contributed to the drop in crime rates. I won't go into it here, but the theory and correlation makes sense to me.


"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
-Ronald Reagan

As a final note, and a deeply personal one:

I was born before Roe vs. Wade. In Phoenix, Arizona. If I was conceived around 1973, It's quite possible I might never have been born. There'd be no "wordsmith" posting at "Sparks from the Anvil". No college student wordsmith who helped feed the homeless with the UCLA hunger project for 4 years....who drove down to Watts every Thursday to help with Project Literacy....who today spreads the joy of paperfolding at schools and at cultural festivals, making kids and adults laugh and smile; I would not be around to make a difference in the personal growth of young children struggling through fears and insecurities as they pursue athletic excellence. In fact, it is very much possible that I would simply not be....

Instead, I was born before 1973.....and I was given up for adoption. I have no idea what the circumstances were, surrounding my birth and adoption. Only that I was raised by two loving parents who have given me everything a child needs: a stable home, nurturing environment, and opportunity to succeed or fail on my own merits.

And having just said that, I don't really go in 100% for the line of reasoning which goes something like, "If you abort that life....you could have just killed off our next Mozart....the future Babe Ruth.....the person who might have discovered the cure for cancer....." That's because you might just as well say, "We might have just rid the world of the future Hitler or future serial killer." Of course, I try to remain optimistic that all life is born with the spark of God in him, and is innately good. But then the realist sets in, and I realize that there are just some human beings who were born mean and would have always turned out evil. What if Hitler could have been aborted? If you could go back in time and kill him while he was a newborn, would that be just? After all, at that point in time, he has not committed any evil acts and is a newborn innocent.

This is an incomplete post and not well organized. But I did want to toss in what little say I do have on the matter...on this day.