Life "support"

There are many "hot topic" debates right now, considering the upcoming US election. Most of the political ones are so opinionated and inflammatory that I have removed myself completely from any discussion--I will speak with my vote and let the mudslingers just go ahead and do their thing. However, this particular topic is one that has been ongoing for YEARS and will continue as long at the atrocities continue to be legal, and I will continue to speak up about it because it is truly a repulsive fact to consider that this "debate" even goes on at all. It makes me absolutely sick to my stomach to have a picture of my precious little grandson in the same post as what I am about to write about, but in some respects, it is the perfect life-affirming place for his picture to be.

In a day and age where political debates (some VERY heated) abound regarding the "rights" of people to do whatever they so please, you'd think people would at least be jumping to defend the innocents who cannot defend themselves, wouldn't you? Seriously, how can a woman's "right" to do whatever she wants supersede another individual's right to LIVE?

Well, because the two "sides" don't agree on what LIFE is, that's how.

When does life begin? Ummm .... well, uhhhh, I think ....

BALONEY! It has nothing to do with what we THINK! This isn't a debate about opinions over whether there's a God or not. This has nothing to do with whether we view something as a sin or not. This isn't a debate about something that our "belief" essentially doesn't matter, because it involves the very right of a human being to avoid being exterminated to make another human have a supposedly better quality of life. Care to see how flippantly the "other side" views it? Here is a quote taken from just ONE site--but I assure you, most I found were pretty much identical.

          "Throughout history, theologians, philosophers, and scientists have debated the question of when life begins. There is no single answer. That is why each woman must be free to make the decision about abortion based on her own moral, ethical and religious beliefs, including her beliefs about when life begins. The critical question is who should decide; at NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri, we believe it should be the woman, not the government." 

So "each woman" determines when life begins? Circumstances dictate whether the human embryo/fetus developing inside her womb is a cherished baby or a lump of lifeless cells? Permit me to give you one little bit of scientific FACT for a second--we learned in elementary school biology that the difference between something that is alive and something that is not is one little thing: CELLS. If it is a life form, it has cells. One cell, many cells, doesn't matter. One would never say that a single-celled organism such as an amoeba is not "alive". But the difference between an amoeba and a rock is the fundamental makeup of that amoeba. The three designations for all matter on earth are mineral, plant, and animal. The amoeba is not a mineral. It has cells. On the microscopic level, the presence of CELLS indicates either plant or animal life. LIFE! Unless that cell is dead and no longer growing, regenerating, etc., it is alive. In the amoeba's case, just one cell--and then when it divides, that other cell is just as alive as the parent cell. In humans (this is something taught in biology class as well), the precise minute that the parent cells combine (ahem ... CONCEPTION!), a new organism is formed. That organism is not a non-living being. It is not a rock. It is a human being. It has all the genetic makeup that it will have for the rest of its life in that one moment. The two parent cells--the sperm and egg--cease to exist as a new LIFE begins. This new life is completely different in its genetic makeup and separate from either of its parents--yet through at least part of its life cycle, it is completely dependent upon the mother for its survival. Does that dependence indicate a non-existence of life? Well, if that were the case, then "life" wouldn't exist until the human being was about, say, 6 or 7 years of age and theoretically capable of fending for itself and providing its own food source. Shoot, I know of some 35-year-olds who seem somehow to be completely dependent on the care of others for their survival--does that make them less "alive" because they have not developed well enough to be independent?

The idea that life exists only at a certain point in development (which, incidentally, came about BECAUSE of  pro-choice arguments) tends to lend itself to subjective reasoning in a "debate" that really needs to be seen objectively. At what point in development is life present? When the heartbeat is detectable with instruments from the outside? When the brain fully forms? When all of the necessary systems are working properly? When the human takes its first breath? How about when that human is weaned, or when it is capable of speech? When it learns to reason? When it can vote?

To allow circumstance, whether it be the child's conception or the mother's (or family's) financial condition or the presence of other siblings of the same gender that would make another child of that gender "unacceptable", to determine the existence of life is utterly ridiculous. What manner of person would choose to cause the death of an elderly parent or grandparent--or even a child who had been stricken with some disability that caused him or her to be incapacitated in some form--merely because their dependence is a burden? We understand that to be an incomprehensible idea, yet that is exactly what abortion does.

Why is it easy to extinguish a human life before it is born? Before we've seen images on a screen? Before we've heard a heartbeat? Well, duh. Because that life isn't strong enough to fight back. That's why.

I want you to look again at the picture of my sweet little grandson at the top of this post. Go ahead. Look. Take a good, long look at the tubes, wires, and medical apparatus that he is hooked up to. Do you know what those things do? They support life. They SUPPORT something that is already there. Those machines do not GIVE life, that was already there before Levi was born. They sustain it. They provide the support his mother's body no longer can. Had he been born a full-term infant, he would not need that support--but he does. Is he less "alive" than a full-termer who can sustain his or her own body temperature, regulate his/her own body system functions well enough to breathe, suck, and swallow to gain nourishment? That idea is ridiculous. OF COURSE Levi is alive. So is the tiny little baby who is his NICU "neighbor, who was born at just 24 weeks gestation--which, shockingly enough, is just DAYS after the legal limit for abortion in several US states.

My little grandbaby, perfectly formed and strong as a tiny little ox, is just as "alive" as the cardiac patient in the ICU a few floors under the one he's currently in. Levi is just as "alive" as the man or woman who will take their last breath in the next few days, but for now are being sustained by a ventilator and IV nourishment. And whether the pro-choice crowd would acknowledge it or not, biologically our little grandson is just as ALIVE as the baby developing within the body of his Mom and Dad's friends in Pensacola who learned of their pregnancy just a few days before Levi's birth. LIFE is LIFE. And life in such fragile forms needs our support. These precious little lives did NOTHING to warrant a death sentence just so Mom can be rid of the burden of raising an unwanted child. How barbaric a society can we be, when we hold the comfort and happiness of some in higher regard than the LIFE of another?

God help us.