There is no question. I oppose killing babies. I know, I know, there are quite a few that disagree with me. Some estimates even put me in the minority. But for me it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. There. I said it. Now the pro-abortion folk can come and complain and tell me why it's perfectly good to kill innocent humans.
So, now, hold on. Did you notice something in that position I just took? I didn't take a religious position. I didn't offer biblical reasons. Mind you, there are biblical reasons, but I didn't offer one there. So why is it that they're constantly telling me "Your religion forbids abortion" when I'm not making a religious argument?
The argument is that a human fetus is human. The argument is that the human fetus is the first stage of human life. It isn't the Bible that tells me that the fetal DNA is distinct from the mother's DNA; it's science. Scripture doesn't tell me that there are distinct arms and legs, head and body, an entire array of internal organs and workings that occur in the early days of that gestation; it's science. I don't have to go to my Bible to learn that this is a human being. I just have to go do science ... and the dictionary ... and common sense. You know ... reality. Facts.
The funny thing I've seen is when pro-abortion women shoot their argument in the foot. A pregnant woman looking forward to her child's birth gets assaulted and loses her baby, and the pro-abortion ladies are out in force demanding murder charges for the culprit. Hang on a minute, ladies. Didn't you just tell me that this wasn't a human being? Didn't you assure me that was just a tissue blob? Aren't you talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say, "If it's wanted, it's human, but if it's not, it's not human"? I define "human being" in scientific terms -- DNA, biology, physiology, all that -- and you define it by "how the mother feels about it"? And I'm the irrational one?
In the end, it seems to me that the real religious fanatics are those who are angrily, violently opposed to limiting the choices of a mother. It isn't done with reason because science says that's a human baby and it isn't done with religion because religion says "Thou shalt not kill" and it isn't done with compassion because the well-being of what science and the government all recognize as "a human baby" has absolutely no protections if the mother so chooses. That's a huge step of faith, a giant religious fervor over "the woman's right to choose" over against all other considerations." Frankly, I don't have that much faith.
14 comments:
I don't know that it's happened, but I imagine if the assault scenario were to play out while the mother was on her way to get an abortion, the murder charge would still be applied, just to show how delusional the position is.
I don't know that it has happened either, but I do know that there was an actual case where a woman was harmed and her baby killed and the women cried out for murder charges. When asked, "How can that be murder? It was a fetus." they actually answered, "That was a baby because the mother wanted it." It was their actual reasoning. Go figure.
And you've demonstrated that yet again, the pro-abort argument is not logical, rational or credible. I would say you presume it is "self-evident" that child has a right to life. I'm told there's no evidence for that. Yet, I'm not given any evidence why it is "self-evident" anyone has the right to life. It was no more than an opinion of the founding fathers...an opinion with which I agree...but not at all proven to be true. Still, the pro-abort monsters pretend there's some significant difference to insist the child's life is not due the same respect their own unholy lives are. I don't like those people and still I insist their right to life is sacrosanct. The pro-abort fake Christians disagree, despite their insistence to the contrary. But the fact is there is no fact, truth, ideal, principle, concept, position or opinion which isn't malleable as the need arises.
Except we get our evidence of the sanctity of life from Scripture. They get their unsanctity of life from Evolution. I don't believe that the sanctity of life is self-evident in creation. Our worth is found in the decree of God. Without God making us in His image, they are correct, and yet don't go far enough.
Clarification: But for the leftist pro-aborts, the fact is there is no fact, truth, ideal, principle, concept, position or opinion which isn't malleable as the need arises.
Evolution denies the sanctity of life. We're all cosmic accidents, all interlinked, all the same stuff. The almost universal belief that humans are special, in evolution, is speciesism.
If it's not a living human being, why are people harvesting organs and tissue from it?
They don't argue that it isn't human. They argue that it isn't people, as recognized under the law.
Some do, David, as in "It's not a human being." Your arm is human tissue, but it is not a human being. But you're right. The Roe v Wade ruling was based partly on "It's not a person." Interestingly, they used a circular definition to prove it. The 14th Amendment begins, "All persons born or naturalized ...", so they defined "person" as "born" (instead of "born" as a part of the natural progression of being a "person").
Seems the point of "born" was in reference to nationality since it is immediately followed by naturalized.
Yes, they were clearly wrong ... but, of course, the authors of the 14th Amendment never dreamed that the question might be about killing babies.
Yes, the argument has moved to "personhood" because it's such a difficult term to define. It becomes problematic when their definition of person opens the door to killing more classes of humans.
Stan, you are right about one thing. One the one hand evolution diminishes the value of all life, but on the other hand the highest value of Evolution is reproduction. Clearly abortion doesn't further the alleged goal of Evolution.
It always amazes me that the argument reducing the unborn is the same argument that allowed for the oppressive slavery of our past, and yet they're perfectly happy to hold to their position.
David,
The similarity is interesting. Even more so because the people who make the argument do so, blissfully unaware of how their arguments sound. Of course many of their arguments support killing all sorts of folks who most believe should have person hood.
Post a Comment