WET PEOPLE ARE NOT HUMAN
It won’t surprise anyone who knows me that I am staunchly pro-life. I have however attempted, on many occasions, to enter into the minds of pro-choice advocates to understand why they refuse to recognize the unborn as human beings. Today I came across the following sections of our Criminal Code which attempts to define when a child “becomes” a human. Here is what it says:
“When child becomes human being
223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.”
This is interesting logic: Exposure to air makes you human. Wet people are not human.
A few years ago our cat had kittens. As the babies came out one by one, logical processes caused me to recognize that I was witnessing the birth of a litter of kittens, each of which was just as much a kitten the day before it was exposed to air, as it was afterwards. Exposure to air did not magically make these creatures kittens—they were just as feline in the birth canal as they were when they dropped into the birthing box. I doubt any objective person would debate this unless they felt uncomfortable with the implications of my observations for abortion.
Curiously, the Code also states:
“Killing child
(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 206.”
If I read this right, it means that I, as a human can be charged with homicide for injuring a non-human (who is in amniotic fluid) (according to #223) only if he is later exposed to air. Can you help me with this logic? How does being in the air suddenly make me human???? Does exposure to air trigger the sudden appearance of human DNA or something? I just don’t get it.
Further the Code states,
“Killing unborn child in act of birth
238. (1) Every one who causes the death, in the act of birth, of any child that has not become a human being, in such a manner that, if the child were a human being, he would be guilty of murder, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. (Criminal Code ( R.S., 1985, c. C-46 )).”
Here’s how it all breaks down:
•Kill a child inside the mother and its okay (because they are still surrounded by amniotic fluid).
•Injure the same child inside the mother so that she dies outside the mother and that’s bad; 25-years-in-jail-bad (because exposure to air makes you human?).
•So that means the space you occupy (atmospheric or amniotic) is what defines you (or it) as human or non-human.
All this talk of being wet or dry (unborn or born) got me thinking. Based upon this reasoning I could conclude that I cease to be human every time I strap a SCUBA tank on my back, submerse myself in water and rely upon a little hose to supply me with oxygen. But when I re-immerge, and dry myself off, I become human again!
I try. I really, really try to understand pro-choice thinking, but I JUST DON’T GET IT!!!!
posted by Rev. Dr. Aaron Rock at
9/29/2009 01:58:00 p.m.
6 Comments:
I can't help but notice that your "wet people are not human" post is only a few post removes from your "divine hydration" post.
2:23 p.m.
In my experience of people that are pro-choice, it is not so much that they don't believe the child is human, but that there are extreme situations that allow a mother to make her own choice based on her life and circumstance. For instance, it is not easy to tell a woman who has been impregnated by a rapist that she should just suck it up and have the baby. Obviously, having a baby is a huge rite of passage, and for those who were never given the choice in the first place, abortion gives them that choice - whether it be morally right or no. In fact, most women who have abortions are haunted by the fact for the rest of their lives.
Personally, I believe that instead of criticizing these women and telling them they need to have their baby (seeing it outside the context of each woman's life), the church should be inviting these women in, taking care of them, offering the true facts of abortion and childbirth, and coming alongside them in love, to help them through the difficult steps ahead. Before the church is willing to do that, I don't think it has any right to condemn and point fingers.
5:10 p.m.
Thanks for for comments Steph. My article really doesn't address the matters you raise, but you are right, the church does need to reach out to repentant murderers just like anyone else. Of course, if there is no repentance or recognition of wrong, the church is helpless.
Your statistics are wrong however. Only 1% of abortions are a result of rape. 98% are purely elective. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
11:06 a.m.
I didn't mean the church should necessarily reach out to people who have had abortions - although they certainly should; I meant that the church should be reaching out to people who are considering abortion, in order to prevent it from happening.
And you'll notice I didn't actually didn't use a statistic - I simply used rape as an example. However, there are many other women who become pregnant without choosing to do so - and whether out of extreme poverty, little life experience, or whatever the reason, they feel that aborting the pregnancy is the best option. I don't think the church is doing its job in trying to educate and nurture these women, and therefore don't find it helpful to condemn them for it. Of course there are exceptions, and people who do not want to be corrected (as in anything else), but I have noticed time and time again that the church does not react in love and acceptance, but condemnation and judgement, which is just as much a sin as murder.
3:45 p.m.
I am always amazed (dumbfounded really)that when pro-choice people, want the baby they will copy the ultra-sound, show it around and proudly say "Look at my baby!" I'm with you. I don't know what there thinking.
9:21 p.m.
I love the wording of the law...
"(1) A child becomes a human being..."
Isn't a child already a human being? Shouldn't we be using a different term if the child is actually
not a human being? Is this ambiguous or am I mistaken? Perhaps it should say... "The thing
becomes a human being", or "the matter becomes human". By using the term child you are
already applying a human designation to the "unhuman" arrangement of matter. Is that logical?
Perhaps I am wrong...
11:24 a.m.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home