The man who is evil uses excuses to murder. To justify his actions, to ease what tiny conscience he has, he dehumanizes his victim. And so does the woman.
I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?
Shylock, The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1
I believe that the right to life is far more than just the right not to be killed. That’s the right to stay alive. I believe that the right to life is the right to be alive. That may sound like a distinction without a difference and I suppose in a way it is but I ask you to ponder it for a moment then connect the thoughts you have with the subject of abortion. The baby doesn’t just have the right not to be killed by its mother but it has the right to live, to exercise its liberty and to pursue its happiness.
That right isn’t given to it by its mother. That right isn’t given to it by the government. That right is unalienable. That means it cannot be removed, it cannot be separated from the being.
Because of this I do think that if the life of the mother is endangered she has the right of self defense. This is true of any case where one human must protect herself from another. But outside of that the right to life exceeds the other rights the mother has that might be infringed during the pregnancy. Perhaps during that time she cannot pursue her happiness, or is not fully at liberty, but the right to life is greater in this case. This includes rape, incest, and birth defects. If being defective gives one human the right to kill another then all one has to do is redefine a defect to show Shylock just how much he bleeds.
There are rights and they apply to human beings. When you read abortion stories be on the look out for language that dehumanizes. Be aware. Focus on that. Then you will know what they are trying to do and you will understand why it is necessary in order for them to excuse killing.
The fact that the baby is inside the mother does not mean she has a right to kill it. Yes, it’s her body, and yes, that baby is inside of her, but that alone does not giver her the right to take its life. That body inside of her body has equal rights. If not, then decide which conjoined twin would have the right to kill its connected sibling.
If it’s not human how can a smile bring pain?
Since that much is placed in the founding and governing documents of our country those who wish to abort their babies have had to take another tact. The baby, they say, is not human. It’s only a mass of cells. This, above all else, they must believe. To that end they can never do anything to humanize abortion.
So desperately must they cling to this narrative that they must squash any evidence to the contrary. If someone tries to prove them wrong they silence them. Take the below video. It relates to a court case in France. It’s a case that you will accuse me of lying about. You will likely say something along the same lines as what I said when I first read about it, “No, that CAN’T be true!”, I was taken aback by the very thought of a society with values so warped.
What was at issue with the court case? The children with Down Syndrome in the video – were smiling. Or said another way, they were alive and pursuing their happiness. The court ruled that they could not be shown on television. According to the article, “On November 10, the Conseil d’Etat ruled it “inappropriate” to show happy children with Down syndrome on TV, as that sight could “trouble” women who chose not to give birth to their disabled children.” (TB&B, 2016)
It seems they don’t see children with Down Syndrome as human. To see them alive, smiling, happy, is evidence to the contrary which they simply cannot abide.
If it’s not human why can’t they see it?
In the video below we hear from some former employees of Planned Parenthood. They speak of the arrival of the latest technology to the clinic, a 3D ultrasound machine. The technician describes it’s capabilities to the employee with excitement. He begins to explain the printer feature and goes quiet as he realizes Planned Parenthood will never be printing off any ultrasounds to share with happy parents. Why would that be if what’s inside isn’t a human?
If it’s not human why won’t you listen to the heart beat?
The below story is about an Ohio law that would prevent abortion to that stage of development where the baby has a heartbeat. When describing this law NPR, which is National Public Radio, meaning your radio, you’re the public. Bre Payton, staff writer for The Federalist wrote this about it:
It’s time the media has an honest dialogue about what abortion is instead of couching it in sterile terms like “fetus,” “tissue,” or “sounds from the fetus.” Instead they ought to use terms like “baby,” “organs,” and “heartbeat,” because that’s what these things are. Euphemisms equal bias.
Euphemisms don’t just equal bias, they equal dehumanization. That of course is the point. Always remember, if it’s a human it has rights, if it has rights killing it is murder. So no matter what, it can’t be human. So all sorts of arguments ensue about just when life begins. That’s why the heartbeat bill was created, to codify that the hearing of the heart means life. Well meaning, but it falls short.
If only fully developed means human then why let teenagers live?
The moment of conception, that moment when there is literally a flash of light, signals the right to be alive. For it is at that moment that not only has something new arrived on the scene with it’s own DNA but it is as that moment that all the processes of begin. A flower on an orange tree becomes an orange. If we pluck the flower no orange grows. The value of the thing is lost, the potentiality is gone. If we use only the stage of development as a guide then only adults would have rights. Children, born and in the world, are not fully developed. They cannot reason the same as adults can, cannot problem solve the way adults can, it isn’t until a child is over a year old that that they become self aware at all. If they don’t know they are an individual then does that mean they aren’t and we can kill them? Of course not. Just because science has given stages of development terms like “zygote” doesn’t mean suddenly we aren’t talking about a human. You’ll find no other zygote growing and developing inside the mother than a human one.
Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual. (Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3)
It has been pointed out, rightfully so, that if we found a mass of cells on Mars science would immediately acknowledge there was life on mars. What do you think would happen if they tested that life and found that it contained human DNA?
The stage at which a human life is, does not reduce the value of that life, nor does it give anyone a right to end that life and rob it of all potentiality.
Will women always abort their babies?
The left keeps saying that if abortion is illegal that women will still abort their babies. I have no doubt that is true. Rape, murder, and theft: these are all illegal things that people continue to do. If making something illegal actually prevented behavior there would be no crime since we have a law for everything. Laws don’t prevent behavior, that isn’t their function. Laws provide a means to codify behavior and assign punishment for violation. So yes, women will still abort their babies. But we charge them with murder.
To that the abortionists advocates will call me a harsh platypus. How dare I! Do I really think a poor frightened woman should go to jail for this? After all, she so wants the abortion that she’s willing to stick a coat hanger inside herself to do it! Is that evidence of her innocence or her depravity? I think the latter.
Psychologically, it is a sign of something mentally wrong with a person that they would do such a thing. I do not question that the woman has motivations that are to her very real and very powerful. Of course that is the case. Why else would someone do something like that? But such justification can be said of many murders; they are .so full of fear, rage, jealously, anger, or another mental state, that they murder. Most murders are motivated in this way. So few are psychopathic.
The fact that people will always do something is a silly excuse to legalize it. People will always rape. Do abortionists argue we should make that legal? Heaven forbid! But their logic in saying we should allow abortion because women will do it anyway is the same.
The sign in the image above shows the ignorance of the person holding it. They imply that coat hangers are the only option if abortion is illegal. That, of course, isn’t true. You know just what I’m going to say, and if you are pro-abortion (yes, pro abortion not pro choice, there is no choice) then you are likely shouting something like “it’s not that easy” before I even say it.
Adoption is an option
Millions of people want to adopt, especially newborns. But advocates of abortion consistently say that this isn’t a good option. Of course they say this because they know that the moment the child is born the mother will want to keep it. That handing it off is emotionally painful and difficult. She will either suffer for giving it away, or suffer because she can’t, will keep it, and raise it in less than ideal circumstances which may stifle her own development as roaring woman. But you see, this only goes back to what I said before, never humanize. The moment that woman fully realizes what is growing inside of her, what has been, or had been growing inside of her is a human baby, things get complicated emotionally. Better to dehumanize, shut down the emotion, and coldly and with calculation, murder the child inside the womb.
Private and government agencies exist to help with adoption. Adopted children are raised in love. It is an option and a dang good one.
Sympathy for the mother
As part of their effort to promote abortion (not choice, abortion) people like me are painted with a brush of being mean. People like me ignore how hard it is for a woman in the cruel and hard world in which we live. They have to dehumanize me too, otherwise my words might matter.
Truth is, I have great sympathy for women who have an unwanted pregnancy. Just because, with the exception of rape and incest, I think it’s her “fault” and could have been prevented doesn’t mean I don’t feel sorry for her. Regardless of how one feels about sex it cannot be argued that abstinence works 100% of the times it’s tried. Feminists point out that part of the empowerment of women is the power over their own sexuality. Sure, I grant that. But in the words of Uncle Ben, “with great power, comes great responsibility.” Women can’t have it both ways. If you want the power of sexuality you must accept the consequences of wielding that power. Same goes for men. That the consequences are greater for women only means they have a greater responsibility not a lesser.
Of course I have sympathy for the mother. I have sympathy for the father. I have sympathy for the grandparents too. But I do not think that sympathy means the baby can be killed.
Does the father have rights?
Half the DNA in the child belongs to the father. In most cases the act that formed the child was voluntary and legal. In such cases it seems incredibly biased to give the father no say at all in the matter. Ironically, in their effort to combat this idea, abortionists have actually come up with the exact argument as to why abortion should be illegal and is a violation of human rights.
In an article on the subject the author, a clearly brainy student of sociology wrote:
First and foremost, men’s “right to an abortion” is predicated on the idea that children—and fetuses—are pieces of property jointly owned by men and women; their arguments insinuate that if children are property, then it follows that it is unfair for a woman to have complete control over whether or not a potential piece of property over which she shares ownership with a man materializes…Because the fetus and the uterus are inextricable, women are necessarily implicated by the conception of children and the fetus as property.
Additionally, conceiving of children as property is a direct strike against the fight for racial equity as it comes out of an anti-Black ethos. The abolition of slavery should have been accompanied by the total deracination of each constituent part of its ethos…One of the main ingredients of slavery is the idea of people as property—Black bodies were things to be bought and sold among people who believed that they had ownership over them. In order to avoid reproducing any facet of the catastrophe that was slavery, the idea that people are property must be wholly eradicated for any and everybody. (Marcus Lee, 2014)
You see, in arguing that fathers have no rights because humans aren’t property he acknowledges the one thing abortionists works so hard to deny – the thing growing inside the mother is – in fact – human after all. It cannot be bought and sold or bartered over. It has the rights of a human being. The baby is not the property of the father, neither is it the property of the mother. It is not property because it is a human being. Because it is a human being it has unalienable rights among which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” all of which are violated by an abortion.
Rights not religion
Many people object to abortion on religious grounds. That’s terrific to have that moral foundation and to want to protect life. But our laws are not based on religion, they are based on rights. Because of this no religious argument will ever be enough. If the mother doesn’t believe in a god, or the same god as another, then there is no foundation in law for the god of one religion to supersede the god of another before the US congress. God A says it is wrong, but god B does not and having religious freedom means that the worshiper of god B is not beholden to the morality of god A. But the constitution, which can be thought of as American Scripture if you want, sets forth the rights that govern everyone who lives here.
Nor will emotional pleas suffice to stop the slaughter of the innocents that is taking place. Too successful has been the effort to turn off emotion through the dehumanization of the baby that turning it on again is likely impossible.
We must focus on the right to life. The actually right, not the slogan. We must focus on the fact that what is in side the woman isn’t property but is an actual human in an early stage of development but like all developing humans no less a human being worthy of exercising its potentiality.
Abortion is a violation of human rights. To combat abortion that alone needs to be the focus of the fight. It is a human and humans have rights.
Abortion is a human rights violation.