Right to Life vs. Pro-Choice… a personal discovery about abortion

The discussion of a baby’s right to life vs. a woman’s choice seems to be a hot topic again in the Unites States. I don’t think the controversy ever totally disappeared but since the election of Donald Trump, the issue has bubbled up again as tempers (and patience) are short these days.

I know where I stand but this post isn’t one that will try to convince you to believe what I believe. I’d just simply like to write down something I thought of and began researching last week. First, though, I’ll point out the strongest argument for both sides, whether pro-choice or pro-life. 



Pro-Life…

I’m starting with pro-life because this strong argument will set up what pro-choice supporters use most often as their strongest argument. A pro-lifer will say that the fetus, usually beginning right at conception, is a human being, or at the very least, will be. This newly formed being has the right to life, just like everyone else.

Pro-Choice…

The defense against the pro-life stance above is simple. This newly formed fetus is not a human. It’s part of the woman, therefore the woman has the right to decide what to do with her body…. which is where “My body, my choice,” comes from. 



If you’ve been part of a discussion with someone who doesn’t support your views on the matter, you certainly know that it will go back and forth for who knows how long… each side presenting why they think they’re right and the other is wrong. 

I don’t know how often or at what rate anyone flip flops on their beliefs because both sides (pro-life and pro-choice) seem to be pretty well hunkered down in their respective camps. The fundamental difference is one side doesn’t see the fetus as a “human life” and the other side does. To argue that abortion is murder as a way to change someone’s mind will not work because pro-choice folks don’t think it’s a human, therefore it can’t be murder. 

That would then beg the question, “When does life begin?” I think both sides answering this question honestly with an open mind, perhaps backed by science if possible, would help with some sort of compromise. Compromise isn’t necessarily the best solution, but at least it can take the hurtful rhetoric down a notch or two. Finding some kind of common ground on this question is the only way the two sides will ever stop arguing, short of a miraculous revelation from Heaven. 

In society today, the most popular mantra on the pro-choice side is this, “My body, my choice,” or “her body, her choice.” This is the idea that no one else has a say about what goes on in a woman’s body except for her and maybe her doctor. To counteract this, pro-life people will ask if the woman has 2 heads, or 20 toes, 20 fingers, and so on. They’re pointing out that the fetus, within a month of conception, is forming a head, fingers, toes, arms, legs, etc. 

It’s widely believed that a fetus has its own DNA within hours of conception, therefore while it’s dependent on the mother, it is not the mother. If this isn’t strong enough evidence, let’s think about blood for a second. I did some research on common blood types A, B, and O. What I found extremely interesting was about early discoveries of blood transfusions. To set it up, we all know if a person needs a blood transfusion and this person has type A blood, they need a donor with type A blood. Someone who is type B would need a type B donor. But a little over 100 years ago (late 1800s) this matching of blood types was not happening because the differences hadn’t been discovered yet. There was a need for this discovery though, because blood transfusions had a terrible track record up to this point. Why? Well, as it turns out, mixing blood types is deadly. A type A person cannot receive type B blood and expect to live. In the mid- to late-1800s the medical community actually shunned transfusions because of this high risk of death. 

As all of this new information was squeezing into my brain, and undoubtedly pushing other information out (if I forget your birthday this year, this is why!), I began to connect the discoveries of blood types to the fetus in a mother’s womb. 

Did you know that it’s possible for a baby to have a different blood type than the mother? I also discovered that a fetus has his or her own blood running through their tiny body roughly 21 days after conception. That’s only 3 weeks! So remember what was discovered about transfusions over a hundred years ago, blood types cannot mix or else there is a high risk of death? This is also true in pregnancy! If the blood of either the mother or fetus were to mix, both would most likely die from it. Enter the placenta. This critical organ serves as a two-way filter between mother and baby. Among other things, it keeps the mother’s blood from getting to the baby, and the baby’s blood from getting to the mother. 

Fascinating, right? 

Now going back to the strongest arguments from the pro-choice side, “My body, my choice,” and the fetus not being a human… these must be complete falsehoods because one person cannot have 2 blood types in their body. This fetus/baby is a separate human being  with its own DNA, it’s own blood, and that is the only possible scenario. I believe this newly formed human has the right to life, as stated in the Declaration of Independence… 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Like I said earlier, I’m not trying to change your mind. I just wanted to record in writing something that has solidified my stance even more that we are supposed to speak on behalf of those who can’t yet… in this case, the unborn baby. 

For lighter reading, check out my post about why I absolutely have to leave the toilet seat up in my house.

Thanks for stopping by!

-Out of the Wilderness

 

So is Hillary running for Prez or not?

There’s a local radio host here in Nashville who has prophetically projected that Hillary Clinton will jump into the race for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Obviously, at this time she hasn’t and since a few of the states’ deadlines for submitting your official entry has passed, she’ll have an interesting road ahead if she’s going to secure the nomination.

One thing working in her favor is that all of the current nominees basically use defeating President Trump as their top priority. My reaction is this: OK, so what will you do the next day? To make it more clear, it’s like your spouse has been making popcorn for the family for the last few months and one day you tell them, “We need someone else to make better popcorn.”

Your kids react, “Oh, ok. Well, why should you be the one to do this?”

You respond, “Your mom isn’t fit and my top priority is to stop her from making popcorn.”

Kids: “What will you do different?”

You: “Let me be clear. Your mom is the worst popcorn maker in history. It’s time for her to go.”

Child 1: “Yes! She’s brought popcorn back 20 years and we need to move forward! She hates yellow kernels, too.”

Child 2: “Hates yellow kernels? When has she ever said anything like that?”

You: “She’s spreading popcorn phobia, and she’s a white popcorn supremacist. If you choose me, I will defeat your Mom. We cannot let her take away the popcorn’s right to choose.”

Child 1: “Kernels aren’t even popcorn anyway.”

Child 2: “I believe once the kernel is in the pot, it’s popcorn.”

You: “You don’t have a pot, so your opinion doesn’t matter.”

You see what I mean? OK, that sort of went in a direction I hadn’t planned but the whole point of this post is that the Democratic Party is fertile soil for a hero to come in and save the day. If it’s not Hillary, I could also see the party uniting around Michelle Obama (recent Grammy winner, btw). I think Michelle’s smart enough to stay out of politics, but Hillary has a bone to pick with Trump. And Bernie, for that matter. My final thoughts, “Why can’t we just pop some popcorn and enjoy it’s buttery goodness?”

-Out of the Wilderness

Biden out, Bloomberg in? New TV ad from Bloomberg after Iowa fiasco

This week something really interesting happened. I was jogging on the treadmill at Planet Fitness (because who wants to run outdoors when it’s 40 degrees and rainy??) and looked up to the row of TVs to see, surprising no one, an ad for Michael Bloomberg. But it wasn’t the familiar ads we’ve seen recently.

This campaign ad featured Bloomberg’s relationship with former President Barack Obama. Take a look.

The timing is what’s very interesting about this ad. A few days ago the Iowa caucuses took place started and, while final votes are still being counted days later, Biden looks to be well behind the leader of the Democrat nomination process. If Biden was banking on support from the Obama camp, and clearly he was, that will all but disappear after his dreadful numbers in Iowa. So the day after the Iowa caucus, Bloomberg airs an advertisement touting his relationship with Obama. It’s very clever and strategic to do this as support for Biden is most likely going to disintegrate and those folks will need another nominee on whom to cling.

In the commercial, Obama spoke praises of Bloomberg, so Bloomberg is clearly trying to rally everyone who loves Obama onto the Bloomberg bandwagon.

What do you think about the timing of this ad? Will it help Bloomberg? It’ll be interesting to see if Obama officially vocalizes support for any of the nominees, as he hasn’t so far.

-Out of the Wilderness

CNN Hosts Debate on Phrases That Have a Lot of Vowels

New York City, NY — Hosts of an afternoon CNN political program got into a lengthy debate yesterday when the topic of “quid pro quo” came up. Producers of the live show were thrown for a loop when the four experts diverted into a realm of discussion not typically suited for a CNN show.

IMG_20191106_132249

“Next up for discussion was their thoughts on ‘quid pro quo,’ because that’s something Americans care about,” said associate producer Geoff Garcia. “But then it got a little weird.”

In a surprise move, Anne Moore counted aloud the number of vowels in ‘quid pro quo,’ which she declared to be five. Why she did this is still unclear, but Bill Williamson followed it up with his take on other phrases that contain a lot of vowels. Here’s a partial list they came up with:

Under the weather (6)

The coast is clear (6)

Barking up the wrong tree (7)

Across the board (5)

By hook or by crook (5 or sometimes 7)

Neither here nor there (8)

Things got a little tense when Ron Thompson chimed in with “I could eat a horse.” His three colleagues believed this offering from Ron crossed a line, because, as Anne Moore said, “we here in the US don’t eat horses, OK?” Ron was apologetic stating that he was only trying keep up, not that he would ever actually eat a horse.

CNN brass caught wind of the statement and quickly cleared up the matter. An insider who spoke under conditions of anonymity said upper level management asked Ron only one question concerning the horse comment. “We’re not going to beat around the bush. How would you feel if President Trump were to be impeached, and had to leave office?” Ron replied he’d be “over the moon.”

Ron was reinstated, promoted, featured on the cover of People magazine, and is now up for a Nobel Peace Prize.

-Out of the Wilderness News

12-year climate change timeline is a win/win for Democrats

Leaving science and everything that makes sense out of this, the 12-year deadline for the end of the world is the best thing Democrats could have ever come up with. Why? Well, I haven’t heard anyone say this yet, maybe they have and I’m just unaware, but here’s why the Democrats are putting most of their eggs in this climate change timeframe…

It’ll be the year 2030 when the so-called climate change timetable is at it’s end point. At this point, either the world ends, as suggested by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or it doesn’t. And here’s where it gets good for the Democrats…

Scenario 1 – the world ends

Democrats announce the ultimate “I told you so!”

Scenario 2 – the world doesn’t end

In this case (and what I think the Democrats will do since the world isn’t going to end in 2030, at least not because of global warming), the Democrats will say, “We did it! Thanks to all your hard work and the amazing vision and leadership of the Democrat party, we’ve avoided disaster. Now, you should trust us with your vote, your money, and your future!” They’ll use this heroic act of saving the world to push their party forward and ask for everyone to join in with the party of the future. They’ll say, “Republicans and conservatives would have brought the world to an end, but thank goodness the Democrats did something about it!”

The ironic part is this: even if no one did anything environmentally responsible from today till January 1st, 2030, the world wouldn’t end. The Democrats know this, so no matter how much effort is or isn’t put into “saving the world,” they’re going to take credit because of what’s going on now– the party-wide push to fix global warming. In 2030, they’ll say it was all thanks to them.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think they have a 12-year plan to set themselves up as the saviors of the earth? Comment below!

As always, thanks for stopping by!

-Out of the Wilderness