Since I have difficulty with posting lengthy discussions, I have decided to start a series of little mental notes (Tidbits and Nuggets) so as to keep my blog active. I just hope I can keep sustain it.
TaN: It is amusing that “modern” man innovates and invents stuff to make his existence easier and more comfortable, thinking (partly) that these so-called conveniences will leave him more time for other things. However, upon closer and more serious (self-)examination, it would seem that all that effort just brings us on a long journey back to our point of origin.
For instance, we invent cars and elevators so we do not have to walk so much. Then, when we realize that we have to keep fit to stay healthy – because the conveniences are removing much of our physical activity – we go to the gynmasium for a workout, especially among the weekend warriors. But, if you stop to contemplate on it, if we had walked more and rode less, we would have to have the workout at all. In other words, we try to avoid walking and then spend our “time saved” by working out – back to square one. Think about it.
TaN: Hoping to assist in nudging the controversy and debate over right to life and abortion and women’s rights to their bodies, I would like to make this proposal.
Since conventional (medical and legal) wisdom bases its argument and conclusion or definition of when and of how death is determined by the cessation of cardiac activity, would it not be common sense and practical – at least, for the moment – to use it to base the definition of “alive” or life? What I mean is, should not the determination of when life begins be based on when – of course, after its formation – cardiac activity begins. The moment there is a heart and it starts to work, that point in time should be the reference point by which we can say that there is life.
Given this, the proper legislation could be fashioned to state that both the woman-patient and the performing doctor will be (criminally) liable for (first-degree) murder if and when the fetus is intentionally removed (i.e., aborted) when there is already a functioning heart. As to whether it will likewise be considered murder if and when there is no functioning heart can be argued and decided later.
TaN: It is foolish to say that man owns the earth and it is the earth that owns him.
(This, obviously, will not need further elaboration.)