Life Begins at Conception

...the famous mantra of the pro-lifers...

But then following that logic, why does the volume of the outcry of those claiming their desire to protect and preserve life seem to so greatly decrease once the umbilical cord is cut?

FIRST...Let me start off by saying that I write from my own perspective and experiences. I don't claim to be an expert in any field, but I have in my years had some life experiences. Part of that experience has shown me that many people hear those things that I'm not at all saying and consequently seem to be prone to interjecting whole other agendas, that I never intend, into the arena when they respond.

1] Certainly some preformed bias is a factor when we hear, read or experience anything in life. I know and show this, because preformed bias is in large part the basis for my writing and so it is steeped in opinions and observations colored by my own vantage point.

That said however, I would ask that you consider only that which I am saying when considering the topic (any of them) at hand. Then, and if, if you care to interject other factors as relevant in your view, by all means do so, but please don't assume that you are doing so because of anything you might think that I am consciously implying or suggesting.

2] My preformed bias, or the color of my pallet is formed by my own experience, awareness and understanding of the culture I live in. I suppose that if I lived among squirrels, I might write about squirrels, but I don't. I live among sheep.

So back to the issue...

Where were we?...Oh yes, all life has inherent value making it worthy of protecting and preserving, but until what point?

There's a lot, (many many)  other factors at play to be sure, but here I would suggest one view that many of us probably don't stop to consider: We live in a culture that is monetarily, consumer and greed driven. Consequently, naturally, in large part this is the standard upon which we come to base the value of many things, unfortunately among those things we include the human life.

Stop for a moment to consider if you will, that many of the terms we use in describing our relationships are also terms that have dual, monetary applications as well. (we invest in relationships, we value relationships, etc. you get the point.) So at the outset we are subtly conditioned, from our earliest awareness of language, to base "value" by using such terms and (perhaps not consciously) applying similar standards to relationships...other people.

It is inherent to the culture we have created. Don't get me wrong it's a fine culture in its proper context but not without its faults. Perhaps this has greater implications and applications, and we can talk about that later.

Seems to me, that prior to life outside the womb both the liability and expense on most every level (to those of us not actually carrying and birthing a child) is pretty minimal overall. Pre-birth is probably the easiest stage at which to extend these efforts, but this is not the end of it, it is in fact merely the beginning.

We might suggest, without real or deep consideration for any of the potential long term consequences on anyone or everyone else, that even an unplanned / unwanted child can be of some benefit. Perhaps to those who have the desire but not the ability to bear children of their own or maybe we think that the potential aspirations and contributions for even an unwanted child are an indeterminable potential asset to society and worthy of seeing through.

I supposed though that one could also apply that same thinking when they go out to drill for oil, or pan for gold. "The potential value of the projected asset is endless!" blah, blah, blah...

When it comes to human life however, it happens to be true, unlike those circumstances, because we can (should we chose) play at least some part in helping to ensure that outcome.

So then, we're back to the original question, why do our collective and deafening cries to protect and preserve the life of the unborn at such great sacrifice, then find that they are significantly decreased both in volume and quantity when we consider those that have already been born?

I think in large part it has to do with the reality of the time and expense involved in caring for, preserving and protecting those people.

Let's face it, from the beginning, life is an expense, but for the most part in the beginning, it is the expense of someone else. Even at the beginning though there are large profits to be made in the marketplace from the caregivers of children. Diapers, bottles, formula, strollers, car seats, day care, on and on, these things aren't cheap on the whole even when they're cheap individually. Babies and children then have, or are at least the cause of, a large and very positive impact in the marketplace. Someone, a lot of someones, benefit financially from this life.

Later while adolescent life may be viewed as somewhat of a societal burden, (especially to those who have made the conscious choice not to have children) in terms of expense, etc. Those expenses however can be rationalized and viewed as a societal investment of sorts for the greater good, in the future of an adult that will eventually (hopefully) become a contributing member of society.

To be fair, we should probably then acknowledge that what we in large part mean underneath saying "a contributing member of society", is that this individual will potentially have a job, generate an income and to someone, somewhere become that asset which helps to generate a profit of money and/or goods. Even if that income and profit margin is the ultimately the end of their lifetime of contribution and achievements, that in itself seems to be enough to warrant the initial investment of time, money and resources to make them such.

We don't like to say that (not out loud, and not in public) I imagine because it really says more about us than we'd care to face in ourselves, especially those of us that are Christians. But then consider the decreasing value we have placed (as exemplified in the lack of investment in both money and resources) toward the arts in our public and private schools.

Artists, as is commonly known, aren't generally conformists to societal norms, they aren't big bread winners, and realistically (in large part) they won't be much of a "positive" impact in the general economy, or the bottom line of big business. As a result, their work becomes devalued by a culture that measures the value of that work it in terms of monetary gains. It appears in our culture that they are viewed as liabilities more than assets and so perpetuating such interests is seen as less than worthy of encouraging, as we consider their monetary contribution more than their cultural and societal contributions.

While there are certainly plenty of occupations this direct low economic status might be said of, most of those other occupations will at least have the effect of ultimately benefiting others financially tangible in some way, perhaps by providing us with cheaper products and food. So we not only overlook them, but try to instill the values and education that might perpetuate them at a young age.

They are what is known as "unskilled laborers" and "production workers". Take a look around, there are a lot of them and your lifestyle depends on them.

This rather large segment of society (the "unskilled laborers" and "production workers") is dependent largely on the only resources they really have at their disposal, those that are  deemed of value in the work place, their ever decreasing time and health.

As their time nears its end so does their health, and their existence becomes less profitable to maintain. Life goes on, and so too does the qualifier of the monetary value assigned to it, each decreasing in value day by day.

If they have insurance (any kind), even though they may pay quite significantly over long periods to have it, eventually in the long run their (and our) contributions to it will not be considered as much as the expense of providing the ever increasing need for services they should rightfully receive. Somewhere a claims adjuster will begin to notice the cost of keeping them on and raise their rates to an unaffordable level, or simply get rid them all together for a younger healthier premium payer.

Now, God help them if this is the case, but if for any reason, they don't have insurance, somewhere down the line tax payers will wind up having to foot the bill they will inevitably incur, however that comes about.

If you ever want to see the ugly side of someone try messing with their money. I think you'll find them far easier to contend with having blasphemed the God they claim, than in getting them to willingly part with the money they claim, especially if no underlying, self serving motive is involved. The response without knowing the background story, and I have personally seen this, becomes to make the one without insurance out to be reckless and irresponsible rather than one who simply could not afford to purchase insurance and still put food on the table.

Even the best cars will stop when they run out of fuel...and perhaps we project this "irresponsible and reckless" image on to them in our own minds simply to ease our own consciences.


Thinking....wait for it...

As is typical, this is off the cuff and none of this was preplanned. I write as I think and I really do try to think as I write. I usually (or try to) come to some resolve somehow...

That said however, it seems as I write this little rant I find that no real resolve to the bigger root issue comes to mind, except perhaps to suggest this...

Look beyond your wallet. Increase your field of perception beyond your field of vision.

That the value of life cannot and should not be measured by its underlying monetary standards as our culture might dictate, but by those shown and given to us in the Bible.

As we (Christians) are fond of reciting, we are to be in but not of the world. That being the case, perhaps too then our application of such Biblically based standards to others (unborn or otherwise) may in fact be a barometer of our faith in the One whose image we claim we were made...all of us then in that image.

Think about it.

Solo Cristo Salva

d(-_-)b


Jonathon,

I guess in summary I would have to say:  

You're Pro-Life, for life at every stage of it, or you're not actually Pro-Life at all...

I once read  book in which some homeless and broke guy said the whole of the law could be summed up in two commandments...ummm...something about God and then something about one's neighbors...

I just want to know, who then is my neighbor?