Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from May, 2011

Abortion Misdefined

THE SECOND DEFINITION of the intransitive verb, "abort," in Merriam-Webster dictionary runs as "to become checked in development so as to degenerate or remain rudimentary." One characteristic of "development," aside from being an act or a result, is that it is also a process. Any process begins at the point of initiation, but not the generation of an idea, or the planning stage. And "rudimentary" inarguably means "of a primitive kind," or being in its fundamental form. This gives us a more fundamental definition of the term "abortion" as the "termination of the process of giving life to a human being through a natural, biological and developmental process of conception into a child ready for birth." Now, this definition is entirely different from the standard medical definition of "abortion." Merriam-Webster's standard definition of "abortion" is "the termination of pregnancy after, acc

The Senate as a Protector of the Unborn

SHOULD SENATE BILL 2497 becomes law, the Upper Chamber would once again distinguish itself as a bastion of rationality and moral discernment in a Congress that has been confused over whose right must be protected the most--that of the mother, or that of the unborn child? The mother bill House Bill 4244, sponsored by Representative Edcel Lagman, believes that mothers must be protected with the protection of the unborn child given only a lip service. While Section 3(i) recognizes that "abortion is illegal and punishable by law," it does, in a twist of linquistic doubletalk, not support the idea that such is a serious break of the law; and instead proposed that "all women needing care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled." It is like giving treatment and counseling to a serial killer after murdering a child, and then simply saying, "You may go now. Just come back to us for a regular check on your wounds." HB4244 is an all-mother bil