The thing is, it’s not the government who gets to decide whether a woman can or cannot have an abortion. As it stands, in the LAW, if a fetus is past a certain developmental stage, the stage where it becomes sustainable outside of the womb (even though it would be supremely premature) then an abortion is NOT a legal option; the fetus is recognized as viable, and therefore human, and so it would be murder to kill it in-utero and extract it.

Before that point, though, it is the mother’s choice, and should remain the mother’s choice. As I’ve said before, the incredibly invasive idea of telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her womb is unconsitutional, plain and simple. The mother’s life takes precedent in terms of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” until that fetus becomes viable. And to interfere with that right is a violation of my, of all our, constitutional rights. Period.

I fully agree and am aware of the feelings about the personal issues of your own body and desire to control your own destiny.

This is not disputed.

The question is whether you, or anyone else, can terminate the life of another human being?

It’s your body – but inside your body is a developing human entity that is unique and genetically human.

If we pretend that we can dismiss this reality, and hide it within carefully arranged sophestry regarding personal choice with respect to your own body – then we miss the central concern.

That being that if we find it acceptable to terminate a human life for a convienince of choice at the earliest stages of biological development, then what are the moral restraints on society regarding the termination of human life elsewhere along the biological journey?

Infanticide? The physically deformed? The mentilly handicapped? The infirmed? The elderly?

Can we add cost and economical considerations for choice, to allow the termination of a human life.

Suddenly we then extend to an entire race of peoples perhaps – the “choice” to exterminate them. Genocide being the final and ultimate end of “choice.” WAR being the ultimate instrument of choice.

LIFE is such an amazing thing. From such humble beginnings comes the spark of genious, the glory and splendor of art, the wisdom of the sage, and the folly of the fool. We can seek answers to the deep mysteries of the universe… because we are sentient, and can ask the questions.

Better I say, far better indeed – to excersize the choice of restraint in the moment of passion. To excersise the choice of protection. To excersize the choice of rational thought.

If you don’t believe we should have a choice about what to do with our own bodies when we find ourselves in a physical condition we do not wish to have, then I believe women should be able to interfere with the reproductive abilities of men as much as men seem to feel they can meddle with our uteruses.

Reclaiming the center? hmmmmm…. a nobel concept.

Let us try to practice it here a moment.

All biological life is a functional result of DNA and the building blocks of genetic code within cellular biology. A mouse, a pig, a dog, a human being as a unique member of the species begins the journey of life from a single, incomplete cell. The genetic code for development of a unique lifeform within the species is not complete until conception. It is just simply a scientific fact that at that moment the transformational code of the combined genetic materials now facilitates the growth and development of the organism.

This biological and scientific fact is a-moral. The now unique lifeform is on the biological path of development within the species, again a dog a cat or a human being. Life is not subjective, it is objective. It is measurable, observable, indisputable.

The application of moral thought with respect to life is a matter of individual judgement. You may either apply the moral judgements of human life to all stages of development, or you may selectively dismiss them, but it is a choice only with respect to the moral thought, independent of the biological reality.

Thus society makes moral judements as to the extension of law with respect to the protection of human beings, based not on the science, but based on the subjective needs of the society. So-called “rights” are either applied or withheld. You either have the “right” to choose, or it is denied. The organism either has the “right” to life, or it is denied.
But the application of a higher moral standard to the “rights” of any group versus another is sociologically subjective. Is the right to “choose” superior to the “right” to life? Or vice versa?

Returning to the natural, biological facts – the unique individual human life form is either terminated from existance, or continues on with development. It cannot know the moral judements made by OTHER human beings about existance.

Finally then the issue is whether single cell or multi-cellular, unique individual human beings at any stage of development, are in fact created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights – Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whether the Constitution of the United States of America extends to this level of human development or not.

The logical consideration, purely from a Constitutional and foundational legal principle from the cornerstone documents of this Republic suggest that we must resolve these questions in the affirmative for life. Not simply because of the natural, biological and scientific reality – but because of the potential for society to make “other” judgements regarding human life. Already witness the cases of infanticide, doctor assistated suicide, and of course the case of Terri Shaivo.

I am satisfied with a discussion regarding these issues if all accept that we are talking about the termination of unique human life forms. If society rit large determines that some human beings are not protected by either moral, or legal Constitutional “RIGHTS” – and that the subjective “rights” of society (et. al. the individual within the society) are superior – then please let’s just be honest about it.

Yes we are talking about CHOICE. But choice in this context is neither living, developing, growing or scientific. It is a personal moral judgement that places the true RIGHTS of one human being, above the RIGHTS of another human being. The individual liberty and freedom of a living human being, to terminate the existance of another.

Finally, the CENTER of this issue recognized the enourmous complexity of LIFE versus sociological precident. It recognizes the realities that there are cases where saving one life, may require the termination of another. It recognizes the deep emotional impact of violence, rape and fear. It recognizes that patients, and calm debate and conversation are much needed, but often lacking from this issue.

I will continue to try and understand all aspects and deep complexities therein.