With the retirement of Justice Kennedy from the Supreme Court of the United States of America the left has gone into a panic mode over who the choice might be. If Trump picks a conservative – they say fearfully – he might choose someone who will overturn Roe vs Wade. That is the case that suddenly made abortion legal all across the country. Because the people never had a chance to vote on the issue, because it was just dictated tot hem, it has been the great divide in the US. It’s become the sacrament of the left. It’s the thing they want to protect the most. I honestly don’t understand why.
I can’t conceive of why killing is the thing that becomes your line in the sand.
I understand the arguments the left uses to defend abortion. They all ignore the humanity of the baby. They have to of course. The court case itself gave them that clue. In the majority ruling it reads, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
That is one reason that I talk about rights when I talk about abortion and why I talk about humanizing abortion. It isn’t pro-choice vs anti-choice as the left would have everyone think. It really is about the right to life. Does the fetus have a right to life?
Though I enjoy the works of Ayn Rand and much of what her philosophy teaches one of the things I disagree with her about is her view on the fetus. She argued that the unborn have no rights and that abortion was a “moral right”.
“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” (The Objectivist, October 1968)
That is the one main thing I don’t agree with her about. Rand calls the fetus “potential” and she says that “potentials” don’t have rights. Where I don’t agree is that they aren’t alive. They are.
“The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.” (On-Point-Scientific-View-of-When-Life-Begins-Condic-2014)
The argument isn’t about the quality of human life, or the developmental stage of human life. It’s about human life. The entity growing inside of a human woman that resulted from the joining of human egg and human sperm can be nothing else but a human life. Humans have the unalienable right to life. Even the court in Roe vs Wade acknowledged this fact. They just failed to acknowledge that the fetus is a human life.
Why wouldn’t a fetus, or a zygote be a human life?
It’s an absolute scientific fact that life begins at conception. We accept this for all animals but for some reason it gets lost when we discuss it with humans. It’s the most basic bit of the “birds and the bees” that even children learn. A sperm and an egg come together and when they do an entire process takes place that is the creation of a new being. Not a sperm anymore, not an egg anymore, and not the mom or not the dad, but something unique. It is alive. It’s not dead that’s for sure. It’s not not-alive. No accurate description of it exists without the word “human” in front of it. Human zygote, human embryo, human fetus, human baby. Unless something kills it, like disease or violence it will continue to grow and develop until born.
Just because someone hires a doctor to kill it doesn’t mean it isn’t human it simply means it won’t be born. I can’t believe that everyone, and I mean everyone, doesn’t know that it’s a baby. What else would it be?
There is the argument that it can’t think or feel. But that is countered by the fact that humans that have been born, given certain medical conditions, also don’t think or feel and we don’t kill them off. It’s merely the fact that it’s more convenient to kill the fetus than the 9 year old with a birth defect though both require constant care and have no ability to consider their own lives.
It has been a sign of our humanity that we protect and take care of those who cannot protect and take care of themselves. Now, because it isn’t convenient for the mother, it’s suddenly a right to kill the helpless? No. I don’t see it that way.
And let’s not pretend it isn’t for convenience. There is an awful lot of mental wrangling that goes on just to defend abortion and really, in the end there isn’t a defense for it beyond those rare circumstances where it is either the baby’s life or the mother’s.
The court in Roe vs Wade knew all this and gave the abortionists their plan of attack to keep it legal.
Does this all make me anti-woman?
That’s what those who are against abortion are accused of. This is a simple straw man argument. Rather than argue about the nature of human rights they argue that the person talking hates women. So much easier to argue and so much harder to defend. Of course people who are against abortion don’t hate women. Those arguing it know as much. You can love women and believe that children have a right to live even though they aren’t outside of the woman in question. It’s a poor excuse for an argument and if someone tries it on you there is no reason you have to accept the premise. The moment you begin to say you aren’t anti-woman and convince them otherwise you are no longer discussing abortion and the rights of the fetus. They win the abortion argument by attrition because you choose to argue about your not hating women instead.
The argument now is the same argument it was during Roe vs Wade – is the thing inside the mother a human life? If it is then it has the right to live.