Sunday, May 17, 2009

In Reply To: Dr. Konde Emmanuel’s The Pro-Life Hypocrisy

The woman’s freedom to choose between who should live and who should die is not sacrosanct as Dr Konde claims because they did not create life. The cock that crows belongs to a household but the crows belong to the community. That is why people are arrested if they decided to burn down their own house or perhaps decided to kill their own child. Isn’t that house theirs? Isn’t the child theirs? But their choice is limited when those actions directly affect the society. One cannot wait until a woman calls to be rescued before anyone intervenes for if that was the case then why does the government intervene in the truant adolescent? Isn’t he or she destroying her own life? Why are people imprisoned for destroying their own money they toiled for? That is why there are civil and criminal laws because if everyone was left to live the way they want, some people will never be civil, and abortion is not a civilized act. What is civilized in crushing the head of an unborn child?

Thank God both pro-lifers and pro-choosers are basing their arguments for freedom from the Bible. It is their right to chose but to choose to do good. Actually pro-choice is that of choosing to let a life live. Indeed there should be partisanship when our collective resolve and our individual morality are summoned to protect a life.

To claim that the debate between pro-choice and Pro-life has nothing to do with God or faith reveals the nescience of the author in biblical doctrines. Abortion is bad . The Bible calls the fetuses in the womb people (Gen 25:23); thereby honoring life from conception.

Indeed life begins at conception in the sense that the ovum and sperm are all living and the zygote is a living tissue. From the time that the sperms meet the eggs and get fertilized life has begun. If I am to show the connection between the zygote and the mother at the time of conception then the mother rather than become a facilitator to bring the child into the world would become its maker. So what I am doing is to show you that the zygote once it starts already has life because the components: ovum and sperm that formed it are all living organisms. Thus from the time of conception it is a living organism that undergoes stages of life until it enters back into nothingness with death. Therefore, life will start immediately there is conception or fertilization. You know well that an organism is anything with life. So I have asked you a simple question: is the zygote an organism or a dead tissue? If it is an organism then it has life and life has already started. And if it is an organism; when did the zygote obtain its life. Then life began from the time it was conceived.

The creation and conception are two different periods. During creation an adult is brought into being (Adam) but during conception the ovum and sperm meet. The formation of a zygote that matures to an embryo and then the fetus at all these stages indicates life since the organism is living. Is a zygote an organism? If it is then it has life and life starts from conception. The story of Adam could not be the same with the story of the little Jacob in the womb. In Rom 9: 11 the Apostle Paul renarrates the conception of Esau and Jacob and calls them children. Life would not have started after birth because they were already acting up while in Rebecca’s womb.

When the Bible says we are set free from sin and given freedom it is not freedom to dolce vita but freedom unto righteousness. By implication; it is crossing from the slave of sin to the slave of righteousness, from the slave of the devil to the slave of Jesus. If pro-choice is based on divine rights given to humanity by God then the rights are limited to righteous living only. And there is no one out there that will consider abortion as a righteousness act. The argument has always been that the act is bad but it is their right.

Pro-life claims are actually not against the woman’s rights because countries where the Bible has been like the main religion obtained more women’s rights than those that are not. Consequently pro-life is not an attempt to trample upon the woman’s rights. Actually by relying on biblical tenets the woman gains more than loses rights.

Indeed there is an argument that “supposed godly and faithful men have historically destroyed human life by usurping the rights of others in the name of God”. Just because they did it does not make the act right neither does it make the attempt to defend human life hypocritical. Just because the Catholic Church that was supposed to preserve human life practices the vow of celibacy does not reduce its authority in making pronounces about pro-life. If one must experience everything before they make a statement then the author should not make one on pro-life because himself is a man and not a woman,. He has never been pregnant and does not intend to. Yet again that will mean women are right to make the statement that will limit them because they will have to wait till the child becomes a negative byproduct for them to confirm that he or she was supposed to be aborted.

The argument is not about when or when not should a woman have a child but whether the woman has the right to destroy a life she does not want. No one has prescribed to a woman that she should have a child when she is old or young; rich or poor but that the woman’s freedom is limited to life only when deciding whether to deliver a child on earth or to abort that child.

However, I do agree with the author that the pro-life exponents in most cases are far from God themselves as one looks at their persistence in racism and injustice against the people of color. That majority of pro-life who are themselves white should have demonstrated a better concept of the preservation and protection of human life with the way they treat other people.

Nonetheless, the real hypocrisy starts when the author who came to this world without a choice whether he should live or die pretends there should be a choice now whether other children live or die. If his mother had crushed his little head in her women we would not be reading from him now. Yet he was given the opportunity to live but does not want other children to live. That is where the hypocrisy really starts.
Until then, please let the child live!
Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk

“No matter how a rat becomes the house pet, if it is sleeping beside the bag of groundnuts the owner may not have much sleep. ” (Hamilton Ayuk)."If a goat runs from the owner’s leash it will be tied by the council in a market square" Hamilton Ayuk).

Does Al Franken and Tweeden’s photo speak a thousand words?

Does Al Franken and Tweeden’s photo speak a thousand words? Before the advent of photoshop, a photo spoke a thousand words, but in...