Posted on 03/16/2009 12:28:38 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
If you’ve read any of my columns, then you’ve probably guessed that I’m adamantly prolife. I promised to write more about my stance on abortion, and since the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (January 22, 1973) is at hand, there’s no time like the present. There are many reasons why I am antiabortion (and yes, I use the terms pro-life and antiabortion interchangeably). My religious and philosophical convictions demand that I value the sanctity of life. I will forego the religious argument as to why I am anti-abortion (although “Thou shalt not kill” and “God hates the shedding of innocent blood” pretty much cover it), but I will offer my philosophical argument as to why I am antiabortion. I’m not attempting to demean or attack any woman who has made the decision to abort; however, I will be completely candid about my feelings toward this subject. If I offend someone, it won’t be the first time or the last time.
The underlying assumption of my argument is that life begins at conception. If you don’t believe this, than you are probably proabortion (and yes, I use the terms pro-abortion and pro-choice interchangeably). However, think about this: Does the “blob of tissue” that a woman has in her womb ever result in anything other than human offspring? I mean, when delivered, that “blob” doesn’t come out as a cat or an apple tree. It is always human. When a woman is pregnant we don’t say, “Gee, I wonder if she’s gonna have a cat or a tree.” We only ask if the baby is going to be a boy or a girl because we know that the offspring of a human always results in a human being. Even if a doctor or scientist cannot medically or scientifically say that “life” begins the moment of fertilization, we know through common sense that life is present. After all, if life doesn’t begin at conception, when does it begin and how? Are we defining life by brain and heart activity? If so, how does a brain or heart go from lifeless to life? Unless we can answer these questions explicitly, then I think we should err on the side of life and not death.
If life begins at conception, the next step is that abortion ends a human life and is therefore homicide - the killing of one person by another. No matter which country or state you live in, I’m pretty sure that it is against the law to kill another person with the exceptions of self-defense, war, executions, etc. Yet abortion is the only legal act that ends the innocent life of a human being with no consequences. Not only is the homicide legal, it is encouraged as a method to undo a “mistake.” Now, I realize that not all aborted pregnancies are due to lack of pregnancy prevention. I know that pregnancies result from violent attacks. I also know that some desired pregnancies present significant life and health risks to the child and/or mother. However sad and emotionally traumatic those cases may be, can one place a value on human life? Is one life worth more than another? I say no. All human life is equally valuable. Mom’s life isn’t worth more than the child’s life. The circumstances surrounding the conception of human life or even the quality of life that the child will have are irrelevant - neither change the principle that all human life is valuable.
I can hear the arguments coming: “It’s my choice, my body,” or “I have a right to control my reproduction.” Consider this basic libertarian principle that governs our country: one’s right to control one’s own body does not permit violating the obligation not commit acts of aggression. Just because you have the ability to do something does not mean that you have the right to do something. You never have a right to kill an innocent person. The unborn are innocent people. An unborn child has the right to be in the mother’s body. As a matter of biology, an unborn child is not “part of a woman’s body” in the same sense that her organs are. Rather, he is a separate being involved in a special symbiotic relationship with the woman, but not part of her. Therefore, the unborn child cannot be the woman’s physical or personal property. Parents have no right to evict their children from the womb and let them die. Instead, parents owe them support and protection from injury. When your choice affects a human being, your choice can’t violate that human’s basic natural rights. No government or individual has a just authority to legally “de-person” any one of us, born or unborn. The purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them. Therefore, abortion should be illegal.
Finally, I’ve been told that since a woman’s abortion doesn’t affect me, I should just sit down and shut up. Someone actually told me, “If you don’t like abortion, then don’t get one!” That’s like saying, “If you don’t like murder, then don’t do it!” Of course, if I don’t approve of something I won’t participate, but I think the morality of the abortion issue doesn’t just apply to me - it’s universal. While my life isn’t directly affected, someone else is affected - a human being who has no voice. I believe that it is my duty as a human to advocate for people who have no voice. To me, that is just basic human compassion and decency. We need to find a way to be pro-woman and pro-child because neither group is served well by abortion.
PING!
Excellent post! Many thanks.
You’re welcome!
Man has “free will” to choose anything; however, there are consequences.
On the Religious Argument, I like Jeremiah 1:4 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"..
The Question then is answered "When did you become a You?
Answer: Before you were formed in the Womb.
Consider this basic libertarian principle that governs our country: one’s right to control one’s own body does not permit violating the obligation not commit acts of aggression. Just because you have the ability to do something does not mean that you have the right to do something. You never have a right to kill an innocent person. The unborn are innocent people. An unborn child has the right to be in the mother’s body. As a matter of biology, an unborn child is not “part of a woman’s body” in the same sense that her organs are. Rather, he is a separate being involved in a special symbiotic relationship with the woman, but not part of her.
And I can add that not only is the fetus innocent, and not a part of the mother, but that the mother (in almost every case) undertook to create the dependent relationship. Under undisputed principles of law, when you undertake something, you incur special added responsibilities.
For instance, if you see a child drowning, you have no legal duty to rescue. But if you took that kids out swimming over his head, you have a duty to rescue him is he gets in trouble.
That is about the best, most concise explication of the libertarian argument against abortion I’ve seen yet! Very good!
I am zealously pro-life. So I am on the side of your arguments, but your position on life begins at conception, while I agree, needs to be substantiated with stricter research and support. I think the best statement you made which if I may, I will repeat, is:
Parents have no right to evict their children from the womb and let them die.
Very good sentence!
Hi IR,
I’ll pass this on to the author (not me, but a friend of mine).
I hadn't thought of it quite like that, but it's a great point. The act of procreation was the invitation.
Sounds like we can answer this at our pay grade. Pity others can’t.
Romans 3 says that No One does Good... no not one. Man has 'Free Will' between sin and iniquity. Only in Christ, does God do Good works through man. So when folks like us, go to Heaven, we will look back and say "You did it All! You alone are Worthy of Praise.
To cap it off. Romans 3 also says "No one seeks for God". Romans 15 says "No One comes unto Me unless the Father draws him..." which is echoed decively in the duplicated Psalms 14 and 53.
No, only two men and one woman have had Free Will. Adam and Eve and the Lord Jesus Christ. The Two had it before they ate the Forbiden Fruit. The Lord Jesus Christ used it to redeem the Lost, through His Blood on Calvary's Tree.
Last night, in the presense of a lib, I expressed the opinion that God’s moral laws and the consequences of breaking them were as immutable as His physical laws.
Freaked out. Totally.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Are you agreeing, disagreeing, or babbling?
We are all wound up robots doing what we were going to do from all time.
Abortions happen. That is the way God in his infinite wisdom wants it to be.
Some of us will give money or support to Pro-Life causes, and if God wants it to be, then some of those efforts will prove to be fruitful.
Or it could all end up in a sordid holocaust of millions more dead babies.
I'd say that since I don't have free will I'll just be sitting in my Barco-lounger eating popcorn watching the whole show slide on by, but I obviously can't choose to just sit on the sidelines.
The grand puppeteer has already decided what I will be doing with regard to the abortion question.
I wonder what that is?
Once the cells can divide, then life exists. It is growing, and nothing grows without life. There is no growth without life. Even plants are said to be alive while they are growing.
Titus 2;11
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.