Posts tagged controversial
Posts tagged controversial
Alright. First off, I’d like to start by saying that I’m not out trying to insult anyone or their opinions here, but rather give my own while simultaneously ranting, to a limited extent. One must let their thoughts escape every now and again, after all.
The question raised in this little rambling note is “When do we become human? At what point in its mother’s womb does a child gain classification as a human being, and gain its own individual human rights?”
I personally find it a simple concept. It’s human, through and through, conception to birth to death. But many would disagree with me, with most using the arguments I have presented below as reasons for their claims.
I have presented, along with these arguments, why it is I believe said arguments to be flawed or otherwise incorrect. Still, disagreements shall arise, attempts to debunk my way of thinking… which is perfectly fine. I’m not asking you to think the same as me. I’m not even asking you to read or pay any attention to this. Whatever you do, whether you read all this, agree with what I’m saying, or think I’m an idiot, it’s all you and your choice. I’m not forcing anything upon you or down your throat. So you have no obligation to agree or even read to this little session of incoherent babbling.
But, if you read it all, I ask you to do so with an objective mind. Leave your presuppositions and earlier conclusions or beliefs at the door and try to see things in a different light, even if you already agree with me - try and see things from the side of those I’m arguing against, and get a better idea of *both* sides of the story. Even if you do that and you still don’t agree, that’s still fine. But maybe you’ll learn something, anyway, whether it supports your views or mine. Maybe you’ll gain new knowledge. And what’s so bad about that?
At what point is a human alive? When they can think, feel, comprehend the world around them? When they can speak, walk, or be productive members of society - or, rather, productive slaves? Is it when they understand the inalienable rights that they’ve been given? When they can create something of their own? When they experience the concept of death by way of a loved one?
Is it when they themselves die? Is it upon conception, when the first seeds are planted, and the process has already begun to create a human being? Is it upon birth, when it has at last entered our fucked up world, and must now suffer its years? Is it when it begins to grasp the concepts of “Mama” and “Dada”, and it has begun to differentiate objects from one another, give them names, categorize their world?
When do we live?
This is a debate that still rages today. Many claim to have the answer, but just as many would claim they’re wrong. “Women’s Rights”, they say. That so long as it’s within their body, they can end whatever life is in there, whether it’s human or not. A lot of people would say it’s not human; not until it’s born, or not until it takes on the foundations of the familiar human form.
Many researchers and doctors would say this, as well. And curiously, they get all the spotlight, and they are the ones touted as factual, when just as many would disagree with them and poke holes in their ideology. Perhaps it’s a question without an answer. Perhaps it’s as simple as one side would say, that life begins at conception. Nobody denies this fact. Upon conception, life has begun. But what they would deny is that this life is a human, or that this life is indeed human but has no rights until it can think, breathe, gains intelligence.
In the case of the latter, how then are our rights inalienable? If even after we are born we must wait until we can think rationally and truly begin to understand the world around us until we have rights, we could go 2 years without any rights whatsoever. Is that what’s laid out in our constitution? Is that the idea of rights our founding fathers had in mind? If your rights must be earned, they are not rights. Rights are given to you because you live, and you are human.
It’s still up for debate at what point that life inside a woman’s body becomes human. Perhaps it’s never human until it leaves the womb. If that is the case, that is when it has its rights. Maybe it’s human when it reaches that 3rd month, or 2nd month, or 1st month. If that is the case instead, then that is when it has its rights. But maybe its upon conception, when those first sparks of life begin to fire off. Surely, you are not “human” as we understand ourselves just yet. You have no form, no mind, you are microscopic, but alive and growing. You depend upon your mother to feed and take care of you so that you may reach a point where you can survive and function in our world. But does it make you any less human?
Those sparks of life inevitably will become a human being in the way we understand ourselves - two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears. A living, breathing, thinking entity. So we know it will *be* a human. But is it then a human? Well, can something change into something else entirely? Can a kitten grow up into a wolf? Can a virus grow into an elephant? That single-celled organism, that first spark of life, is living, growing, feeding. It will grow into a human being, so therefore, it must be a human being. What else could it be? What could possibly grow into a human that wasn’t human to begin with?
If that is the case, then we have a human being in the earliest primordial state of life. They cannot think or understand that they in fact are - not yet. They have no body or form reminiscent of what they shall be, and won’t for some time. We can’t hardly even see them. But they live. And they will be human, they are human. And if that is the case, then the human rights protected by our constitution and by extension our government (ha) already apply, first and foremost, the right to life and the pursuit of happiness.
The right to life.
Then comes the second argument… whether you agree that those first sparks are human or not, in limited amount on both sides of the aisle, the next argument is “A woman has a right to do what she pleases to her body”. This, I feel, is a flawed argument which misses some very basic points and overlooks basic human rights.
The first and perhaps most flawed point is that the child is a part of her body. That these sparks of life are not an independent life, but her life. This simply is not true. The child does indeed depend upon its mother in the womb, and the two are connected, but wholly independent. They are two separate entities, from conception to birth to life outside the womb growing up to death. They are not one. That child is not the woman, that child is not her body. Thus, how does she have any right to do with it as she pleases, as she has the right to do with her own body?
Most would call that child nothing more than a “parasite” to help their cause, but that doesn’t help them any more. Even if you just call it a “parasite”, that “parasite” is still a separate entity from the woman. Thus any preconceived notions that the woman has the right to do as she pleases with her body and that life is part of her body are thrown out the window even quicker. Because now you acknowledge that it is, indeed, separate… so how would a woman’s rights extend to it?
"Because it’s within her body" some would say. But does that matter? It’s not part of her, is it? It relies on her for life, correct, and they are indeed connected, but they are not one. They are not the same entity. Just because it’s within her and relies upon her does not mean it is her, so again, her rights do not extent to this second lifeform. And then you have the problems that arise in regards to human life. There are 3 major groups of people when it comes to human rights, women, and abortion, as well as a fourth, smaller group.
The first group argues that human life begins at conception.
The second group argues that it does not begin until a certain point during pregnancy, when it takes on form and a mind develops.
The third group argues that it does not begin until it has been born fully into our world, until the cord is cut and it can stand alone.
Then a fourth, smaller group argues that even outside the womb, rights do not apply until sometime later when the being becomes self-aware, which can be as long as 2 to 3 years.
At some point, in everybody’s mind, that child will be “human”. And when it’s “human”, human rights can be applied. For people of the first category this means that as soon as conception, that spark of life is a human being with rights all its own, that it has that fundamental right to life. For the people of the second group, this would be a couple months along when rights are applied, for the third this would be after birth that these rights are applied, and for the fourth, not until they are self-aware, but this disregards the fact that they’re already human. The fourth is fundamentally incorrect by assuming that one must be self-aware to have rights. This simply is not the case. If you are human, you have human rights.
The third group is incorrect because even before it enters our world, it’s already been a fully-formed human being for some time. It has a mind capable of complex thought, senses, arms, legs, a familiar form we all know as that of a human being’s. Even if this is a day before birth, this fact remains true, that the child is indeed human with basic human rights. Living and capable of thought, even if it is not yet thinking.
The biggest fight seems to be between the first and second groups, nowadays. Because nobody can agree when that life truly becomes human. I explained my reasoning earlier on: because it will grow into what we know as a human, it must itself already be human, as only a human can *become* a human and grow like a human grows. But this is a statement that not many would agree with.
The Darwinian and Evolutionary theory states that life transforms from one thing to something else entirely all the time. This is another debate entirely, but whether this is right or wrong, it does not apply, because by the theory’s own standards, this is a change that takes millions upon millions of years of gradual change and slight adaption, built up over truly countless generations of life until a new being is created. Still, some, though perhaps not all or even very many, would use this to support the claim that it isn’t human, because life supposedly can change from one form to another form entirely… but by their theory’s own rules, they are wrong.
And yet still, many wouldn’t agree, and that’s why this debate rages on today. Even with medical technology and science brought to such a state as we have it today, we can’t agree on when that spark of life becomes human life. There’s no arguing that it’s life, but the classification of said life eludes us still. I believe it’s simple, and that it starts at conception. But I am, today, seemingly in the minority.
Perhaps I’m not and it’s just more media spin - it applies to science too, after all. Maybe there are quite a few who think like me, after all. But I don’t see it often. And I find it kind of sad.
If we live in a society that can’t even make up its mind on what life is or when it begins, what can we decide? It’s the most basic of basic ideas, yet it eludes us so. If we don’t understand the basics, how can we make proper calls on the more complex ideas and dilemmas that stem from these basics? Resolution *must* be found.
Well, I’ve said all that I’ve got on my mind. Disregard it if you like, and feel free to disagree with me, but that’s my two cents.
If you’ve read down to this point, then good God you must be bored. And I’m done now so you can stop.
Mm… Banana Pudding… how I have missed you…
…I said I was done.