The word "fetus" merely means "young child" and, anyway, after three months of growth nothing new develops. At nine months the unborn child is more mature, but then a five-year-old is more mature than a two-year-old.
This such a gross oversimplification of the development of a fetus during pregnancy. There's Coren's claim that a fetus is fully developed at three months, and then we find reality:
Fetuses are not capable of feeling pain at the beginning of the fetal stage, and will not be able to feel pain until the third trimester. At this point, uncontrolled movements and twitches occur as muscles, the brain and pathways begin to develop.
...
From weeks 11 to 14, the fetal eyelids close and remain closed for several months, and the appearance of the genitals in males and females becomes more apparent. Tooth buds appear, the limbs are long and thin, and red blood cells are produced in the liver, however the majority of red blood cells will be made later in gestation (at 21 weeks) by bone marrow.
Then Coren goes on to attempt to debunk arguments related to abortion in a classic 'straw man' attack style:
Rape and incest
Most of these arguments are entirely spurious, such as the point about abortion in the case of rape and incest. Such tragedies provide less than a fraction of 1% of the reasons for abortion and they are mentioned by abortion advocates simply to make pro-lifers appear extreme.
We should ask if those who support abortion in these exceptional cases would oppose it when rape and incest are not the causes of pregnancy. We know the answer.
Straw man #1 - support for abortion at all means supporting it under all circumstances, therefore we can dismiss this argument.
Wrong. Dead wrong. The problem with this simplistic framing of the situation is that the argument places the onus entirely upon the woman to reveal and explain her sex life. I don't need to point out that there's nothing here that holds the man in the picture accountable for his actions, is there?
But before legal abortion, the pro-abort people say, enormous numbers of women died in backstreet procedures. Actually this is mostly propaganda. Of course such horrors occurred, but there are no reliable figures and informed sources dismiss most of these claims as nonsense.
Again, another straw man argument. Essentially, he's saying that women dying because they sought an abortion "in the back alley" isn't a big deal. The issue around back alley abortions is not just that women were killed or horribly maimed as a result, but the fact that women found it necessary to seek out underground health care in the first place.
Even if true, they continue, only women have a right to an opinion on this issue. No. Men are fathers, men are taxpayers, men are citizens. Men also are abortionists. But surely it is the nature and quality of the argument rather than the gender of the individual that should inform our position.
As a man, Mr. Coren will never be pregnant, will never carry a baby to term. It is not him who would be "held accountable" for his sexual activities. In short, he has no say in the matter. When men like Mr. Coren can be held accountable for their sexual activities (in or outside of marriage - it's not like Christianity doesn't have a long history of "bastard" children born outside of the marriage bed!), and they pay the biological price for bearing children, then they have a say in this matter of women's health. Until then, he has no say unless the woman chooses to involve him.
Gender bias does, however, lead to far more baby girls being aborted than baby boys. Rather a bitter paradox for feminist ideology.
Why yes, you misogynistic ass, that's all the fault of the feminists. It couldn't have anything to do at all with people who haven't yet figured out that women are just as important and valuable as men, could it?
No comments:
Post a Comment