Amidst all this furor over the possibility of the end of Roe v Wade (not the end of abortion) -- especially some of the comments thrown my way for disagreeing with the notion that women should be allowed to kill their babies at will -- I've had some mental meanderings on the topic. I thought I'd share a few. The first is the absolute irony of this debate during the week before Mother's Day. Just plain ironic.
There is an interesting observation. In 1973 when the Supreme Court issued their stunning ruling that a tentative "right to privacy" (The phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution. It is inferred from the 14th Amendment, but not explicit anywhere.) insured that women could choose to terminate their pregnancies, all abortion laws in the 50 states of America were abolished. However, if the Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade, the question goes back to the States who can legalize or outlaw abortion. Isn't that odd?
Why is it that pro-choice folks get to call themselves "pro-choice" but pro-life folks must be termed "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion"? The pro-life stand doesn't vary much. We oppose killing innocent humans without cause. The pro-"choice" side has varied quite a bit. First, the measure was "viability." If it can survive outside the womb, you can't kill it. That slipped away pretty quickly as medical science shortened the time it took to become viable. So it became "abortion on demand." The only right abortion policy is "up until birth." And, of course, more recently that has shifted so that some states are looking at "post-partum abortion" -- up to 28 days after birth. And they wonder why we call ourselves "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion."
There is a constant suggestion out there that we who are pro-life are evil control freaks and the gentle and loving pro-choice folks are kind and generous to women and their "reproductive rights" (which feels a lot like standing amidst burning buildings during a "mostly peaceful demonstration"). (Since 1973 estimates are that more than 63 million babies were killed before birth in the U.S.) "Where do you get off telling women they're killing babies??!" they howl. "That's just your opinion ... probably just because you're male ... and white ... and patriarchal ... and any other overly stereotypical term we can conjure up." (The fact that a goodly part of those who oppose killing children in the womb are not male, white, or patriarchal, but, as we understand, real facts are rarely at issue in this conversation. According to a 2009 poll, only 7% of Americans believe abortion should be allowed at any time for any reason. And according to a 2010 Rasmussen poll, 53% of women believe abortions are too easy to get and 58% believe abortion is morally wrong in most cases.) No, Virginia, it's not about my gender, my race, or other side issues. It's about life.
Why do we say we are "pro-life"? More to the point, what makes us think it's life in view rather than some fetal tissue? According to the New World Encyclopedia, a human being is "any member of the mammalian species Homo sapiens." The earliest stage of the human being is the human embryo. Studies show that the human embryo is "a discrete entity," not a part of the host body in which it grows. The growing baby has its own body -- its own nervous system, its own blood type, its own pulmonary system, its own circulatory system ... everything. It has distinct DNA and, given the proper means to survive, will continue through all phases of "human" from embryo to death. One paper from the NIH defines life as "an organized matter that provides genetic information metabolism." There is no doubt that a human embryo is life and there is no doubt that a human embryo is human. And the truth is we know that. Indeed, we have codified it. In 2004 the Laci and Conner's Law, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, made it a crime to injure or to cause the death of a child in utero. Ironically, they specifically excluded abortion from the offense, but there is no question that the U.S. government as well as standard science classify an unborn fetus as life, a human being, a child.
Vice President Harris made a statement commonly thrown out there about how "Republican leaders ... are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women." (Only Republican leaders, eh? Interesting.) Now, maybe I'm just ignorant, but is this really intended to rule "against women"? Or is it intended to protect the most defenseless Americans? We are holding "freedom from consequences" in one hand and "life for a human being" in the other and asking, "Which is worth more?" The pro-abortion advocates say the woman's freedom from consequences is worth more than the life of the child. If "Republican leaders ... are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women," then the Democrats are tring to retain the weaponized law to freely kill the most defenseless Americans ... by the millions.
USA Today said that overturning Roe v Wade would make us a "global outlier." I think "outliar" would be true, as in "you're outright lying." Only 7 countries in the world allow abortion on demand. Only 10 allow abortion after 14 weeks. The vast majority of nations around the world prohibit or limit abortion. And, of course, repealing Roe v Wade won't make abortion illegal. It may make it inconvenient in some states. But, good news! There are folks that will be willing to make it more convenient for you if that's the case. USA Today's sentiment is not fact; it is ... sentiment.
The position we take is that humans are intrinsically valuable and should not be killed without cause. There is no cause to kill a child who has done nothing to deserve it. Oddly, the pro-abortion or pro-choice folk are likely opposed to the death penalty for people who earned it, but in favor of killing the unborn child who has not. We, however, are the oppressors. We would urge women not to engage in practices that get them pregnant if they don't want to get pregnant rather than killing babies who get no choice in the matter. It really isn't about controlling women; it's about saving lives. "It's not a life" doesn't hold water in view of science, logic, or the law. Of course, that won't change the minds. Science, logic, and the law rarely seems to change minds. To the pro-abortion crowd, "what the public wants" is what defines "right." (Hopefully they've forgotten that "what the public wants" at one point is currently viewed as heinous.)
__________
Postscript: If you ever wonder if a media outlet has a pro-abortion bias, simply look at how they report on the topic. If they label pro-life stories as anti-abortion stories, you'll know. (Note: They almost exclusively do.)
13 comments:
Oddly, Spain is one of those countries decrying the overturning of Roe v Wade, and yet they are one of the 14 week limiters, and the case before SCOTUS is a 15 week limiter.
If by outlier you mean that we'd be the aligned with the abortion policies of N Korea and China if Biden's policy of no restrictions on abortion until birth is enacted, the I'd say we deserve to be outliers.
If we move to the allowing of post birth abortions, then we'll be in a class by ourselves, I think China officially doesn't allow them even though they regularly are used to kill girls.
I've always wondered, even if the 14th explicitly protected a right to privacy, how does it make murdering one's own child OK if it's done in private? There have a been a few decisions which suggested weakness or cowardice from the court. What Roe demonstrated is a whole 'nuther ball game. The chance that this court might make it right by overturning it would make up for a lot of the other stuff, even while it allows for the heinous act to continue under different terms.
An interesting book entitled Compelling Interest gives a thorough review of the case, it's arguments, and its insanities. The 14th Amendment was offered, but the court ruled that, while the unborn child is human, it is not a "person." Like others we know, the argument was that rights are not conferred on all humans all at once, so while a 16-year-old can drive while a 12-year-old can't, a 1-year-old has the right to live but a 6-month-after-conception child does not. Even the attorney that argued for abortion was concerned about that. How do we say "This is not a person and that is"? California, Maryland, and Colorado are demonstrating the problem, allowing for post-partum abortion -- up to 28 days after birth in Maryland and Colorado.
I find the "worthy of all rights" argument to simply be a smokescreen. Clearly the right to life precedes any other right, and when that right applies is key. IMO, there are two logical points to apply that right. Either conception or birth are the only two that seem reasonable. Obviously, conception is the first stage of a process that results in the existence of a completely unique human person who will progress through other phases of life until death. Birth, is also a clear division point between two different phases of life. I think that both are reasonable places to draw a line. Many would say viability, which makes sense, although it's a little bit of a moving target. IMP, the ultimate problem with anything but conception is that, whatever is chosen, is arbitrary and therefore can be changed. As we're seeing with post birth abortions gaining traction in various places. What's amazing to me is that as the technology has improved which allows us to operate in utero, see with amazing clarity the development of the child, and the lowering of the age of viability, why we haven't seen a trend away from abortion as an option.
Finally, I don't understand why we don't see federal funding for adoption on par with federal funding for abortion providers. Especially since the abortion industry seems to do just fine with funding itself.
I've always argued that I'm not opposed to terminating a pregnancy (abortion), but to ending a life. If science arrived at the capacity to remove a fetus from the womb, incubate it, and bring it to "birth" outside of a woman, I'd have no problem with terminating that pregnancy in that manner. But the women I've talked to about that have all disagreed. "Oh, no," they've said, "we don't want that. We want that pregnancy terminated" as in "no baby afterward." That's disturbing.
To me, there is no ambiguity about human life which allows for the unjust taking of it at any stage of life, from conception to one's natural passing. Thus, birth is not a legitimate option for determining one's right to life. Everything hinges on what happens to bring about a pregnancy. No focus is on that, and one is damned if they dare. If the act in which a couple engages is designed to bring about new human life, then what is conceived is a person and there's really no legitimate argument which can in any way or to any degree mitigate that. So rather than expend any effort whining about "rights", focus all effort...and money...on finding ways to truly prevent conception.
I'm reading a book just recently released by Tony Robbins which deals with all manner of medical advances for dealing with disease and injury. These are pretty much medical miracles and most of them were thought to be unworkable in the beginning. But intrepid researchers got it done. The point here is if all these many treatments and protocols can be developed to save lives, an average 800,000 innocent lives could be saved, and quite quickly with little risk to those who are so quick to murder their children. Truly 100% effective contraception, reversible if it's surgical, could be a reality. Then the sexually immoral could indulge their sinful compulsions without later having to pretend to anguish over the "choice" of murdering their kid.
There's the rub in your argument Marshal. They don't design for their coupling to produce a child, so they feel they should be free of the consequences of sin while getting to indulge their sin. People don't care about going through the hassle of using contraceptives, even though they are readily available. They just want their fun, when they want their fun.
Increased access to birth control isn't the answer. It will only lead to further sexual deviance, as we've seen with the current level of contraception. Preventing the consequences isn't the answer. Properly engaging in sex in the context of marriage will bring us back to pre-control days. Only changed hearts. Give them an out and they'll run even further with it.
It is indeed a bigger problem than "better contraceptives" (Rom 1:28).
Of course it is. But I'm not concerned for the reprobates, but rather for the children they will murder. If they're going to "get worse" because legit and effective contraceptive methods are developed, that's just a matter of how soon it happens, because I don't see it getting any better with or without abortion or contraceptives. So as God would, give them over to their carnal desires, but don't let it result in dead kids.
I guess I'm confused as to why "choice" only applies after pregnancy? Didn't the couple make several choices that got them in that condition.
On that point you're misguided, Craig. They want choice all the way through, from the choice to have unprotected sex -- to do what causes unwanted pregnancy -- and the choice to avoid the consequences of that choice as well as the choice to determine if the life that results continues or not. Choice from beginning to end. While they move the "end" further. "How about 7 days after birth? How about 28?" Why stop there?
Post a Comment