To me, it's not rocket science. It's not even religious. I cannot, sincerely, grasp how this is so elusive to so many. Here it is. I believe, whether you are atheist or religious, male or female, any race you may choose, that there is a common moral position that says, "It is immoral to kill innocent human beings." I know! Revolutionary, right? I would hope not. I would hope that we could all agree on that. I would hope that something as heinous as killing innocent humans would be universally classified as evil. But if we're all agreed on this, why is this so contentious?
It doesn't require biblical insight to understand that what is growing in the womb of every mother is a human being. Science clearly tells us that it can be no other. Standard biology demonstrates that the one that occupies the uterus is simply the first stage of all the stages of human life.
It's as simple as that. It doesn't require a Bible. You don't need a seminary. You don't even need a pastor. Atheists and religious people alike would agree. It is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being. Science and law agree. The unborn are human beings. It would seem beyond reason to conclude, "Therefore, we should let people choose to kill these innocent human beings." So why is it that my stand in favor of innocent human beings is considered immoral, racist, sexist, and all sorts of other unrelated things and "Let 'em kill 'em if they want" is the moral view? Rhetorical question. The only answers would have to be from bias rather than reason.
_______________
Postscript
"So, religion has nothing to do with it, eh?" Oh, to be sure, all of my worldview is informed by my faith. We can arrive at a common moral perspective that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings without religion, but the value of human life is better informed by religion (Gen 9:6). And it is quite clear that God is opposed to abortion: "Choose life, that you and your children may live" (Deut 30:19). However, the pro-life perspective that killing innocent humans is not necessarily or exclusively a religious one.
6 comments:
The problem with the argument that says it's ok to kill someone at one stage of life, but not another, is that the arguments all work for multiple stages of life. Much the same way the "personhood" argument can be used for all sorts of other things that most agree are really bad. The justification for both slavery and genocide usually comes down to painting group X as not being human or not having personhood.
It's my understanding that the law that protects bald eagles from being killed applied to their eggs as well as to mature birds. It's almost like they realize that an eagle egg is just an eagle at an earlier stage of development. Consistency may not be a strong point.
The counter argument is almost always "body autonomy" without recognition of the scientific and legal fact that the aborted entity is not the body of the woman. The pro-abortion argument ("My body, my choice"), then, intentionally ignores the facts even though, as you point out, the same facts are clearly seen in, say, bald eagle eggs. No one on the pro-abortion side is addressing this with the frightening exception of a couple of radical types who say, "Yes, we're killing babies, and we ought to" without regard to, "And ... who else do you get to kill?"
There really is no truthful, honest reasoning behind the pro-abort position. They'll speak of "personhood" as a philosophical argument, and while it may be true, it is no more truthful to take the "it's not yet a person" side, particularly it's still one group of person's declaring they have the authority to claim another group are non-persons...as some so regarded blacks and/or Jews.
I try to emphasize the real issue as being sexual self-gratification. It trumps all reasoning. It's the only thing that matters and no innocent life is more important than getting one's jollies. This is the true issue. The question of whether the unborn are equal in all ways as regard the right to life and to all one might enjoy were that life to proceed unimpeded is subordinate to the selfish desires of others. The size/age/location of these persons is the cheap rationalization for elevating sexual pleasure over life and reason.
From this point...should it even be discussed...the same selfish people will then accuse those like me who dare to bring it up as seeking to control others in their private sexual lives. Another cheap whine. I simply encourage strongly that all should control themselves, most especially when innocent lives are part of the equation. To indulge with no thought to consequence is the action of irresponsible, immature and typically immoral people. No one, particularly the most innocent and defenseless, should be made to endure the consequences of thoughtless actions by the irresponsible, immature and immoral.
There ya go, man, making your religious, white, male arguments which ... oh ... wait ... I don't see anything religious, white, or male. Well, of course, that's because I'm not a liberal.
Stan,
The level of effort it takes to ignore the reality that the child is by virtually any definition a separate body connected to the woman's body is pretty impressive. We marvel at what we've learned about the uniqueness of each person's DNA, then deny that a human with unique DNA is not a separate person.
It's strange how similar the pro abortion arguments are ("It's not a person", "It's my property") to the arguments used to support the Holocaust and slavery.
I have never heard a pro-abort rationally argue otherwise. "That's not a human being because ..."
Post a Comment