The abortion front again....
As I write this Samuel Alito, Bush's nominee to replace justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, has yet to be confirmed. The Democrats and a handful of pathetic "moderate" Republicans, most notably Arlen Specter, are worried that Alito may allow his personal views to seep into his judgments. For you see, Mr. Alito is a Roman Catholic and this could theoretically mean an end to abortion as we know it.
Whether or not Roe is overturned, pro-choicers have a good reason to fear. Abortion is immoral, and one not be of the Judeo-Christian persuasion to see this. Though it is currently legal, other evil practices—slavery comes to mind—have been held sacrosanct by law. Legality aside, the "fetus" is actually a human life and deserves constitutional protection. Those who wish to remain clinging to the silly tenants of the faith of modern liberalism need tread no further. Earnest seekers of truth are free to continue the journey in a spirit of open-mindedness.
First, the "fetus" has unique DNA, giving it individuality. Hence, it does not belong explicitly to the women. This is indisputable. What is presently up for debate is the value of the fetus. I contend that it is a human life. If it is not human, I shudder to think what monstosity it could be. If it is not a life, then someone is going to have to explain to me how on earth it is growing. The only logical point at which life starts is conception, for there is nothing that can change its nature at a whim.
The law has settled on the easy—but incorrect—conclusion that location determines the value of a human life. When put plainly, it is preposterous. If the fetus is in the womb, it can be terminated for it has no value. If, some hours later, it is outside the womb, it deserves the full protection of the law as an American citizen. It is like claiming that driving one's car out of a garage transformed it into a dragon. The law is consistent; it is consistently wrong.
In an effort to defend their sorry philosophy, pro-choicers claim that the fetus is not a child because it cannot survive on its own. They forget that a newborn baby cannot do this either. There is no need to spell out what kind of society we would find ourselves in were self-sufficiency the only means for determining the value of a human life.
The case against abortion is quite clear. Yet it does not need to be. If there is even a remote possibility that a fetus is a human life, we must outlaw abortion and proceed with caution. The burden of proof is not—as it is commonly supposed—on the pro-lifer to prove that the fetus is a human life. Responsibility hinges on the pro-choice side of the debate. If abortion proponents are unable to prove that the fetus is just a meaningless clump of cells, we cannot allow abortion.
At worst, abortion has resulted in the deaths of over forty million human beings since that awful day when Roe became American law. At worst, abortion is morally ambiguous. Prudent and intellectually honest individuals must concur that anything shy of treading softly on abortion is reckless. The fact that pro-lifers are construed as extremists is very telling. Believing that the fetus is not a human life is a tremendous act of faith. I am sick of pro-choicers forcing their beliefs upon me.
3 comments:
First let me say ,I agree with you. Viability is not an arguable position, nor is privacy in this case.Defending all life is a tricky position, more than you acknowledge,I believe and advances in science will further complicate it.My fingernail has life and all the DNA found in a fetus or zyglot or single cell.If you are defending "new life", that formed by the joining of two different strands of DNA you will have to provide justification for this unique and exclusionary example.On a moral level, I understand the pro-choice position and respect it more than you but politically do not think it worth defending.
What baffles me is how this Spectacular Debate has consumed people on both sides in effect masking the real "pro life" issues of starvation (350,000) die EVERY DAY, preventable disease (I don't know the figures) not to mention QUALITY of life for the hundreds of millions of impoverished, already living children.While we priveledged ones squabble over morning after pills.How trivial(relatively, in terms of numbers) our little theoretical, political issues are compared to the actual conditions of so many of our fellow men and how much time and energy we spend on one compared to the other.
You make an excellent point, Troutsky. Let me see if I can point out why pro-lifers concentrate on abortion. It is pretty simple, actually. We can do something--at least theoretically--about abortion. Doing something about starvation requires good Christians to leave the corporate world and go to Africa (for example).
Anyone can wear a button thanking their mother for being pro-life. It takes a whole lot more to try do something great. Of course, Jesus did more than preach against injustice.
It's ironic of course, as I am primarily a--mostly ineffective--preacher. I'll blame post-adolescent angst for my lack of "doing". Take it or leave it.
I think I can work on a column discussing the reason pro-lifers ignore "QUALITY" of life so often. If you get my professors to cancel finals, I can do it very soon. =) Otherwise you might have to wait.
Better concentrate on finals.I have the luxury of being temporarily unemployed but understand how busy everyone is.I have less excuse for not doing more to help the needy and this is a conundrum of modern existance.I need to go volunteer some of this "spare time".
Post a Comment