| |
|
We, the Zetas, hold all life in respect, even such life forms as plants and insects. In creating nourishment for ourselves we destroy as little life as possible and are essentially vegetarian in our practices. We most certainly do not hunt or fish for pleasure, and the thought of harboring domestic animals in boring or unhealthful quarters horrifies us, to say nothing of the virtual torture done in the name of food production by many humans.
It is not surprising that we therefore view abortion with alarm. The tiny life, in truth only a potential, represents the most sentient kind of life among the life forms on Earth - a consciousness aware of itself as well as its environment. However, the matter of abortion is not so simple, as there is more than one life to consider. The mother, whom anti-abortionists consider not at all, bears at least equal importance. Should she not be considered? To fail to consider the mother's situation deems her inconsequential, and herein lies the crux of the abortion issue. It is not over abortion at all, but over control of the decision making process that mothers, fathers, and humans in general hold. Where anti-abortionists cry they value life in the extreme, their practices are the opposite.
Much is made of the moment when sentient life begins. When does the human embryo embody a spirit or soul? At the moment when genetic material from the mother and father combine to form the potential for human life? Most certainly not. At the point in fetal development when the fetus could potentially live outside the mother? This argument also is absurd, as this point in the past was close to term and now has moved along the continuum to just past the second trimester. Have God's birthing envoys moved the point when a fetus is joined with a soul to keep pace with modern medical advances? Clearly these arguments are not logical nor are they meant to be. Anti-abortion arguments are meant to intimidate, not clarify.
So when does the fetus become human, filled with a spirit and deserving of the same consideration given to living births? This varies, but generally it is no earlier than birth and frequently sometime after. We will explain. The tiny fetus, in the early months, does not provide the entity waiting to incarnate with a learning experience. This is also true of severely injured bodies, in coma or gravely injured so as to be focused incessantly on pain management. The entity leaves, to observe from the sidelines. Likewise, before birth the entity becomes familiar with its future home not within the tiny fetus, who lives helpless amid surging fluids and in an environment where the lessons of life cannot be learned because action and accountability are impossible. And does the life of a tiny infant present much else? Sleep is the order of the day, and when not asleep the infant is consumed with hunger and security concerns. The entity waiting to incarnate is allowed to be Out-Of-Body for some time, months in fact, before being required to take up residence full time in its new home.
Abortion, therefore, should be viewed not as an imperative, where something irreplaceable is taken away from a soul, but as a change of plan that nature frequently makes when it washes away an imperfectly forming fetus. In particular, when the fetus is incapable of even the thought processes a fish or amoebae might possess - instinctive adjustment to one's surroundings - the mother's needs should be given absolute precedence. Is she not sentient, capable of thought, and possessed of a soul?