| So, while read TheTheologiansCafe's blog How Many Abortions Does it Take to Make You Psycho? I found myself in a commenting mood. It was an interesting topic, what can I say? He does seem to have a knack for controversy, too, which I like, it encourages thinking sometimes. I posted this in reply:
If you were to test the DNA of the aborted "material" you would find unique DNA for each and every incident indicating a human being. Let's forget age and location for a minute. If a woman killed 15 people, what would her sentence be? Would she be guilty or innocent of murder? Could she be psychologically profiled as a serial killer? Her motives were not for any reason but selfishness, emotional displacement, and some severe head issues in general.
I would be curious to read theb ook, honestly, I'm just not sure I could stomach it.
(Side note, don't places liek Planned Parenthood and such require speaking with a counselor at the time of the decision and at the follow up?) Besides the many, many typos (which I'm blaming on my teeny weeny keyboard at the moment, hehehe) I think I made some decent, logical. I mean, my opinion's definitely in there too, don't get me wrong, but there's some common sense, too. Don't you think? You can honestly answer that, by the way, lol. One of the commenter's whom I will leave anonymous here, much good it'll do, responded to me as follows:
since when is DNA considered a person? By your logic, any time a man masturbates, he is commiting genocide. Now, I could swear I mentioned that the DNA of the aborted fetuses would be their own DNA, but maybe I didn't specify it clear enough. So, I tried again with this:
First of all, DNA patterns are entirely unique to only one creature except in rare cases of twins.And, an actually, my logic does not imply masturbation as genocide becuse it is the man's own DNA he is disposing of, much the same as giving blood or hair, his DNA from his body. What developes from a combining of two DNA patterns into a new one-of-a-kind DNA pattern is a new individual seperate from either parent's DNA, this is referred to as reproducing, among other terms. When one human body knowingly injures another human body, the law as it has been established, is required to follow certain procedures to deal with the crime. What a person, let's say a woman, does with her own body as long as it does not harm another is theoretically up to her. Once that body harms another, a crime has been committed. Therefore, When one set of DNA harms another set of DNA, a crime has been committed. So, when a mother (DNA Set 1) harms a child (DNA Set 2), a crime has been committed. Out of respect for author of this blog, I'll stop arguing here. If you'd like to keep it up, I'm sure we can continue it via message. Now, all that being said, I was wondering what you all thought of my response. Was I clear? Was I harsh? Did I make sense? So often, I find what is common sense or what makes sense in my own head to not be so to others. If I'm missing something crucial to the communication of this idea, honestly I would like help clarifying it and/or softening it, etc. so that I do not offend and may be heard with open ears. If you want to share your views on abortion, etc. on this blog, that's fine, too, but I guess I'm just asking for a little help on my communication skills. I've not been dealing well with conflict at all the last few months... just trying to get back into it, I guess. So... what ya'll think? |
True
Premium
