Love kills Babies
Feb. 14th, 2006 12:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greybetaEIC: Daniel, could you write an article about love for Valentine's Day?
D2: Okay.
[Three days pass. It is now Sunday, February 12th, the layout day for The Collegian, the weekly campus newspaper for The University of Tulsa.]
EIC: Wait, you wrote about THAT?!?
D2: Hey, you just said to write an article about love for Valentine's Day.
Business Manager: He's got you there.
Click the following link and go to page 14 if you want to see article in its actual layout (WARNING: It's a very large PDF file with many large images, it took about twenty seconds for me to DL on my college network).
http://www.utulsa.edu/collegian/pdf/collegian.pdf
Love kills babies
Daniel Tu
In the days leading up to February 14th, Hallmark and Russell Stover’s churn out mushiness in spades. Thorny roses, heart-shaped chocolates and sickeningly cute cards fill store shelves across America. The promise of spring enchants the air with romance. Romance magically transforms into true love, and true love leads to babies.
Oblivious to the world outside, none of that junk matters to the baby inside its mother’s womb. All the baby knows is that it relies on its mother for nourishment and protection. All the mother knows is the random movements and pains of her baby.
The connection between the two happens to be strongest bond known in mankind. Severing that intimate link through an abortion hurts them both more than anyone could ever imagine.
The 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade extended women’s rights according to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. So an amendment intended to bring about the emancipation of slaves was used to secure the legalization of abortion.
In any case, the decision itself has become an unhappy compromise. It either goes too far or not far enough depending on whether you listen to the Republicans or the Democrats. Oddly enough, both parties claim to love the baby.
As the nominal pro-life party, the Republicans advocate an amendment banning abortions. The elephants ostensibly want to give every life a chance to discover the American dream. Life is sanctified by our Creator, a God who loves all of His children. If we don’t speak for the baby, who will?
As the nominal pro-choice party, the Democrats push towards looser restrictions on abortions. The donkeys stubbornly desire to bestow the mother the choice to live her own life. All life is precious, so let us not forget the life of the mother. Won’t someone think of the mothers?
This struggle calls into question the very definition of life. When does life begin, and how can we tell that it has begun? A common misconception is that life begins at conception.
Yet, we freeze embryos without any qualms, treating them not as humans but as experiments on the level of bacteria. Indeed, the baby in its first trimester does not quite resemble a sentient being.
On the other end of the spectrum lies the baby in its third trimester. The baby reacts to noises, almost as if it could hear what its dad is saying. Parents often play the music of Mozart or Beethoven to improve the mental capacity of their children.
Children who go through a Caesarean section survive well into old age, proving the viability of the life of a baby during the latter months of pregnancy. We would be remiss not to recognize the right to life of a conscious being, a baby in its third trimester.
America divides itself over the second trimester, the source of endless debates as we deliberate the exact moment that the existence of a life becomes concrete. Thanks to the miracle of modern technology, we now know that a baby can be operated on and live a normal life a mere twenty weeks after conception. But do we really want to base our definition of life on our ability to save it?
I don’t know. It sounds like a copout, but it is true. I have heard too many situations on both sides of the argument to reject either one. The one thing I do know is that both pro-life and pro-choice supporters love not only the baby but also society itself. They simply have antipodal philosophies on how to improve society.
If we ever have to take a life away, it is because we want to alleviate the agony of living life. Buddhists believe there are three stages in life: birth, suffering, and death. We have the power to choose to skip step number two for many babies that would have otherwise endured great pain or caused horrendous hurt to others through physical abuse and criminal activities.
This idea runs counter to one of Alexander Pope’s most famous pieces of verse, where he writes, “Hope springs eternal in the human breast;/Man never Is, but always To be blest:/The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,/Rests and expatiates in a life to come.”
People don’t kill babies. Love kills babies. Remember that when someone says “I love you” on Valentine’s Day.
D2: Okay.
[Three days pass. It is now Sunday, February 12th, the layout day for The Collegian, the weekly campus newspaper for The University of Tulsa.]
EIC: Wait, you wrote about THAT?!?
D2: Hey, you just said to write an article about love for Valentine's Day.
Business Manager: He's got you there.
Click the following link and go to page 14 if you want to see article in its actual layout (WARNING: It's a very large PDF file with many large images, it took about twenty seconds for me to DL on my college network).
http://www.utulsa.edu/collegian/pdf/collegian.pdf
Love kills babies
Daniel Tu
In the days leading up to February 14th, Hallmark and Russell Stover’s churn out mushiness in spades. Thorny roses, heart-shaped chocolates and sickeningly cute cards fill store shelves across America. The promise of spring enchants the air with romance. Romance magically transforms into true love, and true love leads to babies.
Oblivious to the world outside, none of that junk matters to the baby inside its mother’s womb. All the baby knows is that it relies on its mother for nourishment and protection. All the mother knows is the random movements and pains of her baby.
The connection between the two happens to be strongest bond known in mankind. Severing that intimate link through an abortion hurts them both more than anyone could ever imagine.
The 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade extended women’s rights according to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. So an amendment intended to bring about the emancipation of slaves was used to secure the legalization of abortion.
In any case, the decision itself has become an unhappy compromise. It either goes too far or not far enough depending on whether you listen to the Republicans or the Democrats. Oddly enough, both parties claim to love the baby.
As the nominal pro-life party, the Republicans advocate an amendment banning abortions. The elephants ostensibly want to give every life a chance to discover the American dream. Life is sanctified by our Creator, a God who loves all of His children. If we don’t speak for the baby, who will?
As the nominal pro-choice party, the Democrats push towards looser restrictions on abortions. The donkeys stubbornly desire to bestow the mother the choice to live her own life. All life is precious, so let us not forget the life of the mother. Won’t someone think of the mothers?
This struggle calls into question the very definition of life. When does life begin, and how can we tell that it has begun? A common misconception is that life begins at conception.
Yet, we freeze embryos without any qualms, treating them not as humans but as experiments on the level of bacteria. Indeed, the baby in its first trimester does not quite resemble a sentient being.
On the other end of the spectrum lies the baby in its third trimester. The baby reacts to noises, almost as if it could hear what its dad is saying. Parents often play the music of Mozart or Beethoven to improve the mental capacity of their children.
Children who go through a Caesarean section survive well into old age, proving the viability of the life of a baby during the latter months of pregnancy. We would be remiss not to recognize the right to life of a conscious being, a baby in its third trimester.
America divides itself over the second trimester, the source of endless debates as we deliberate the exact moment that the existence of a life becomes concrete. Thanks to the miracle of modern technology, we now know that a baby can be operated on and live a normal life a mere twenty weeks after conception. But do we really want to base our definition of life on our ability to save it?
I don’t know. It sounds like a copout, but it is true. I have heard too many situations on both sides of the argument to reject either one. The one thing I do know is that both pro-life and pro-choice supporters love not only the baby but also society itself. They simply have antipodal philosophies on how to improve society.
If we ever have to take a life away, it is because we want to alleviate the agony of living life. Buddhists believe there are three stages in life: birth, suffering, and death. We have the power to choose to skip step number two for many babies that would have otherwise endured great pain or caused horrendous hurt to others through physical abuse and criminal activities.
This idea runs counter to one of Alexander Pope’s most famous pieces of verse, where he writes, “Hope springs eternal in the human breast;/Man never Is, but always To be blest:/The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,/Rests and expatiates in a life to come.”
People don’t kill babies. Love kills babies. Remember that when someone says “I love you” on Valentine’s Day.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 07:25 pm (UTC)That's right up there with something I read in the UCO (Edmond) college paper about ten years ago. The gist of the story was that a guy should buy stuff for his SO but he shouldn't spend too much or he wouldn't have any money for beer/pizza for himself. So the article suggested things like cheap lingerie from Wal-Mart, screw top wine (take the lid off in advance so she might not notice) and cooking at home (get take out and put in trays, etc). It was all tongue in cheek but it caused a pretty nifty little uproar.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 09:58 pm (UTC)Hmmmm, this gives me an idea for an article for next Valentine's Day...
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 07:28 pm (UTC)A misconception because you say it is?
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 07:46 pm (UTC)Your premise is a flawed.
Sex does not necessarily have anything to do with love.
And "true love" does not always lead to babies (either by choice or by nature).
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 09:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 09:39 pm (UTC)No sex == no baby. Love does not need be present. So stating love kills babies is inaccurate.
* the majority of the times...yes, I know there are sperm banks and means of artificial insemination.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 09:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 09:52 pm (UTC)"Romance magically transforms into true love, and true love leads to babies."
My interpretation of that is that he is speaking about the romance and love between a man and a woman, with the assumption that the ultimate product of love is a baby.
I don't agree with that statement.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 09:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-15 01:29 pm (UTC)At least not any love with which I am familiar.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 08:05 pm (UTC)Yet, we freeze embryos without any qualms, treating them not as humans but as experiments on the level of bacteria.
We freeze embryos so that they can be later used for in vitro fertilisation. While I suppose one could equate IVF to experiments on bacteria, I think they would be missing the point. The purpose for cryopreservation of embryos is so that they can be later implanted and be given the chance to grow into a breathing human.
You could argue that while it may be life, it isn't sentient at that point. And you would be correct in stating that. But if that embryo were taken to term, could it result in the creation of a non-sentient being?
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 09:33 pm (UTC)And even with IVF, it's not as though every one of the frozen embryos "takes" and grows into a baby. Women undergoing fertility treatments often have to have embryos implanted many times before they actually get pregnant.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 09:37 pm (UTC)True. But would you agree that the vast majority of them are for IVF?
And even with IVF, it's not as though every one of the frozen embryos "takes" and grows into a baby. Women undergoing fertility treatments often have to have embryos implanted many times before they actually get pregnant.
Oh I know. I had originally put that in my response (that people choose to have a number of embryos frozen so that they can try again if it fails), but I took it out for some reason.
And it is entirely possible that the embryo(s) will never take.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 09:44 pm (UTC)I honestly have no idea. I'm not very well versed in the subject.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 09:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 09:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 10:24 pm (UTC)At some point - it has to be said that the Abortion Debate cannot be seperated any longer from the birth control debate... If one is smart enough to realize that adequate birth control *prevents* unwanted pregnancies - then one can quickly realize that adequate birth control for all negates the "Abortion Debate" entirely.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 11:51 pm (UTC)Birth control is a good place to start, but it doesn't really sidestep the debate at all.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-15 03:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-15 01:30 pm (UTC)I am one of four children. All of whom were conceived while my parents were using birth control.
No birth control is infallible.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-15 03:07 pm (UTC)Norplant was rated 99.9% effective - and the only reason it wasn't rated 100% was for liability reasons - not because there was a single case of pregnancy during use before it got pulled due to complaints about the weight-gain side-effect.
Please reread the sentence you quoted - the key word is "adequate" - clearly, your parents were not using adequate birth control.
But then, funding isn't granted in this country to pursue truly effective options - because we'd rather pour money into the abortion/anti-abortion debate.
And that's where I'm stepping out of the thread so that you can go do your own research on what actually constitutes "adequate" birth control.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-15 03:24 pm (UTC)Even if everyone had access to - and properly used - birth control that was 100% effective, that would not "negate the "Abortion Debate" entirely."
You would still have people debating the topic over health of mother/baby issues, issues of rape or incest, etc.
As long as there is the possibility that a woman could have an abortion, you will have pro-life people fighting it and pro-choice people fighting to protect it.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-15 11:06 pm (UTC)I was on it for 10 years, and just rather accepted that part of the 'price' for certainty was the weight - but most women have real issues with a 20-30lb weight gain - hence why they filed the class-action that made it cost-prohibitive for Wyeth.
But you are right - while I don't consider the rape/incest to fall under the issue (if you have access to adequate birth control, the act won't result in pregnancy just like any other act of sex - no matter what the motivation) the 'health risk' issue remains.
But you do have to wonder how much the debate would lose it's luster as a cause if we were talking about a couple hundred potential events a year versus tens of thousands...
no subject
Date: 2006-02-16 01:04 am (UTC)Having access to birth control and deciding to take it are two different things. Unless the government were to mandate that all women who have reached puberty but have not reached menopause must use the pill or some other such daily birth control method, there will always be a population of women who are not taking daily birth control measures.
There are women - my wife is one of them - who have weighed the side effects of the pill and, after consultation with her gynecologist, decided that for her, the risks far outweighed the benefit. I am sure there are many other women who would fall into the same category.
But you do have to wonder how much the debate would lose it's luster as a cause if we were talking about a couple hundred potential events a year versus tens of thousands...
I don't know about that. People on extreme sides of the issue will debate it rabidly even if it was just one abortion (or the potential for one abortion) per year. As long as there are politicians who deem their votes important, the campaign seasons will continue to be weighed down by the abortion issue.
I'm moderate on social issues, and am of the opinion that while abortion shoud not be used as birth control, it should not be made illegal. Sometimes I wish people didn't view things in such black and white terms, because the solutions to problems/issues are rarely that clean cut.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-16 01:08 am (UTC)1. 20 weeks is not viable, certainly not with any chance of normal. 23-24 is risky for a normal life. I verified this in 20 seconds with a quick Google search. Do better research.
2. You start with a good hook, but you don't follow through with the theme. Just mentioning it again at the end is not following through on the theme. You start with personal emotion, but then talk technicality and politics. It's a little disjointed.
3. You've already been dinged for mischaracterizing the life begins at conception belief as a misconception. But even more, you mistake the pro-choice argument. Most honest pro-choice people concede that there is something alive at conception, it's what that something alive means that counts. This is a much tougher issue.
4. You mischaracterize the entire anti-abortion argument to say that the middle trimester is the battleground. For the strict anti-abortionist there is no acceptable time for an abortion - they don't even accept the "morning after" pill, and many consider birth control pills and the I.U.D. as unacceptable abortifacients. The fact is that there is no chance of finding a middle ground between these groups, and that's the greater pity, because the majority of Americans are much more in the middle ground - they don't get a voice in this.
All that being said, I love the question, But do we really want to base our definition of life on our ability to save it? This is a serious issue, and one deserving a lot more attention.
The writing itself is getting cleaner. I definitely see improvement.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-16 01:30 am (UTC)1. For some reason I remember reading 20 weeks, but I'll definitely do more research on my next article.
2. I admit I got lazy. I should have done better even if I only had three days notice to write it.
3. It does seem I managed to miss both arguments. Nothing gets people to tell you you're wrong like getting their argument wrong, especially the pro-choice one (or at least the liberals on my campus tend to be more vocal than the conservatives...at least the ones I know).
4. Indeed, I missed the anti-abortion battleground. I learned this fact quickly as many of my Baptist friends agreed with me except for this point. And yes, the most frustrating thing about The Silent Majority is their silence.
I was planning on writing an article on euthanisia sometime this semester, so I think I will revisit the question on defining life then. And I'll do better research next time.
If I didn't improve under your tutelage, I wouldn't be a good student. ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-16 01:34 am (UTC)