Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Indefensible Infanticide

Today's second article:

Humans are not rational creatures; we are rationalizing ones. We start with emotional reactions and then proceed to cherry-pick evidence which supports our guttural impulses. Just watch the cable news. Bill O’Reilly and the Fox News crowd provide talking points to “conservatives” who would rather hear confirmation that they are right than have to bother with thinking. Yet one sign of emotional maturity is in realizing that how one feels about something is not concomitant with its objective truth.

Thus it is to the objective truth we now turn. The case against abortion can be summarized thus. There exists within the womb of a pregnant woman a collection of human cells which are replicating; the fetus is both human and alive. At some point, the fetus produces heartbeats; later, brain waves can be detected. At or around nine months from conception, the woman painfully gives birth to a human child—an act for which we can all be thankful, since without it we wouldn’t be here. Now, whereas the right to life is something shared by human beings, all forms thereof deserve protection. Any violation of this right is murder and should be punished as such.

Pro-abortion feminists like to point out that the woman's body belongs to her; thus the child has no right to demand that the woman go through the pain of delivering that child. But we do not excuse a man from working to support his children simply because he would rather use his body to consume alcohol than go to work. If his dependents starved because he failed to provide them food, he would be guilty of murder.

The same applies in regards to the pregnant woman: her body is her own, but she cannot use her body to harm that of another. Her right to do what she wishes with her own body ends when it violates the right of the life inside of her to continue living.

It is also argued that a fetus cannot survive on its own; thus a fetus has no rights, and a woman is acting rightly if she chooses to have an abortion. This is preposterous. The right to life is not related to the value of a particular individual. Infants, severely handicapped, and some elderly people are unable to provide for themselves—just like fetuses. Nonetheless, their right to life is irrevocable because of their membership in the human family.

The innocent blood of the 46 million babies ruthlessly slaughtered annually worldwide so that women can remain temporarily free from the consequences of their actions is perhaps the largest atrocity in world history; it is certainly the most appalling exhibition of barbarism on behalf of members of the United States. The number of people who partake in, defend, or otherwise excuse abortion as morally acceptable give evidence to the decay of our society. One often hears comparisons of America to Rome, but we are more like the mortal enemies of the late republic: the Carthaginians, as we gleefully sacrifice our young to Moloch.


troutsky said...

Do people have a right to a good life? After the child draws it's first breath what other rights does it then have? Are these as important as it's first right,to have "an existence"?

A Wiser Man Than I said...

We don't have a right to say, a house, or health insurance. However, human beings have an obligation to provide for those less fortunate than they are. Having "an existence" is of supreme importance; everything else comes after.

You probably feel that pro-lifers tend to over-emphasis bare existence in comparison to, say, alleviating poverty. Keep in mind that conservative Christians, even the one's who stupidly support Bush and love the Wal-Mart, give considerably to charity.

Protecting life is only the beginning, but it's imperative that we build on a firm foundation.