Sunday, 29 March 2009
Abortion: what about Men's Rights?
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have give it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by the reason of life that makes atonement” (Leviticus 17:11).
Science has proved that the blood only begins to flow in an embryo by the 5th week.
So, if God says that life is in the blood and science has proven that the blood is present by the 5th week: should it be inferred that an embryo is only a living human after the mentioned week?
Now, around this time women seldom realize they are pregnant, so when an abortion is carried out after week 5…does this mean a living human is being severed?
Some people say that an unborn creature is not a person yet. But isn’t it? If God says that life of the flesh (i.e. Soul) is in the blood, and science says what it says…it sounds like an unborn baby is very much a person.
Some other people say that one becomes a person at conception. But does it? If the soul comes at the same time the blood does, and science is clear about when the blood starts flowing…it seems like we are not a person before week 5 (since the soul is not there yet). However, I understand how comfortable it is to have such an opinion (bearing and wanting our own derivative must be the highest form of Love).
There is something interesting about those who claim to be pro-choice & pro-abortion (two different things): first, they suffer from the God Syndrome; second, when they speak of those who are pro-life they act and talk as if defending life was a bad thing, or an insult to women. Yes, I comprehend their cause (although I don’t swallow some of their arguments, such as “poor women should have options”…it sounds like they’re saying that abortion is one way to decrease the number of poor people on earth – they may not mean it that way, but that’s what it sounds like) however, I don’t hear these people explaining what an abortion does to women (psychologically speaking), and how many organs it damages inside…they make it seem so banal.
There is something perplexing about folks who claim to be pro-life: first, in reality many of them are pro-choice (for they choose when a woman may have an abortion – in case of danger to the mother; in case the baby has some sort of defect [it doesn’t specify what kind of defect – vanity may play a big role here], and in case of rape & incest [understandable yet spiritually debatable]); second, some of them are, in truth, against-life (for they murder doctors who perform abortion – it doesn’t make sense), hence proving that they too suffer from the God Syndrome (I create, I destroy).
Abortion has been viewed as a woman’s right (notwithstanding debatable).
Women undergo this type of procedure, many times without informing the father of the child (when possible).
Yes, men are known for that silly statement “I’ll pay for everything” (in the past, some women thought they were talking about paying for the kid’s education…poor souls); but not all men would say it, and not all men would want to see their kid taken away like that – who protects these men?
I have a friend whose girlfriend had an abortion and informed him after she had done it. The guy cried for days, for he wanted his kid, his own flesh and blood – his mother was distraught to see a grandchild disposed in such a manner – what laws protect men like my friend and their families?
Yes, women have their rights; but if we are to live in an equalitarian society, so should men.
A woman has the right to reject being a mother; but what right does she have to deny fatherhood to a man?
For further reading on this controversial issue, please refer to LS: Here