Partial Birth AbortionPosted By Fred Lusk |
Joe…
Let's look at this from a little different point of view. You state that "government has even less business poking around anyone's body." However, that statement begs two very fundamental questions: [1] does the government have a legitimate role in protecting life? and [2] is someone's life being taken in this or any other abortion procedure? The answer to both questions is yes, and the logic is irrefutable.
If we begin with the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which is the founding document of the United States, we see an unequivocal statement that every individual has a right to life and that the government has a duty to protect life. In my opinion, this is philosophically superior to any other alternative position. In fact, this is the only position that has any validity, or that offers us protection FROM government and other troubles.
The Constitution, which is the founding document of our current system of government, further states that we cannot be deprived of life without due process (Amendments V and XIV). Other laws along the way reinforce this notion that the government has a legitimate role in protecting life. For this we should be thankful. Contrast this with Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, Saddam's Iraq, etc. where the government was imposed on the people and took the opposing view. Of course, the government can't guarantee life, but it can, should, and here generally does try to protect it. We are only animals if we don't regard human life as being of paramount importance.
As to the second question--what is IT that is in a woman's body during pregnancy? Is IT a unique human individual, or something else, and if IT is something else, what is IT? One of the things I have noticed over the years is that no one on the pro-abortion side of the argument has ever been able to logically refute the fact that IT is a human being. All they have ever been able to provide are euphemisms and logical fallacies. From the moment the egg is fertilized, the genetic material from the man and woman combine to form a unique individual. The biology and genetics are very clear on this point. In fact, there is no point during gestation where we can say IT goes from being non-human to human except at the moment of conception. I sometimes illustrate this using a mathematical step function. Thus, although IT is fully dependent on the woman carrying IT, IT cannot logically be considered anything but a human being. The net result of this argument is that it's not just the woman's body anymore. Since the woman's body is now helping to grow another human being, and since the government has a duty to protect human life, it stands to reason that the government has a legitimate interest in how the woman treats IT. With abortion, there is no due process afforded IT. Abortion kills a human being, and there is no logical counter-argument.
Regarding partial birth abortion, it's just infanticide and it's evil. There's no two ways about it. The fact that all but the head of the baby is delivered before killing it is a meaningless technicality. A baby does not become human at birth. Birth is just a change in living conditions.
Except when the life of the mother is truly at stake, and the argument of self-defense may have some validity, all abortion is ultimately wrong…philosophically, logically, morally, even legally. Unfortunately, the current abortion laws ultimately contradict the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Roe v. Wade not withstanding.
One last point. We, as individuals in this society, also have a duty to protect life, and defenseless life is especially due our attention. For a woman to kill her baby for her own convenience--and this is the reason for which almost all abortions are performed--is particularly repugnant.
Fred
Let's look at this from a little different point of view. You state that "government has even less business poking around anyone's body." However, that statement begs two very fundamental questions: [1] does the government have a legitimate role in protecting life? and [2] is someone's life being taken in this or any other abortion procedure? The answer to both questions is yes, and the logic is irrefutable.
If we begin with the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which is the founding document of the United States, we see an unequivocal statement that every individual has a right to life and that the government has a duty to protect life. In my opinion, this is philosophically superior to any other alternative position. In fact, this is the only position that has any validity, or that offers us protection FROM government and other troubles.
The Constitution, which is the founding document of our current system of government, further states that we cannot be deprived of life without due process (Amendments V and XIV). Other laws along the way reinforce this notion that the government has a legitimate role in protecting life. For this we should be thankful. Contrast this with Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, Saddam's Iraq, etc. where the government was imposed on the people and took the opposing view. Of course, the government can't guarantee life, but it can, should, and here generally does try to protect it. We are only animals if we don't regard human life as being of paramount importance.
As to the second question--what is IT that is in a woman's body during pregnancy? Is IT a unique human individual, or something else, and if IT is something else, what is IT? One of the things I have noticed over the years is that no one on the pro-abortion side of the argument has ever been able to logically refute the fact that IT is a human being. All they have ever been able to provide are euphemisms and logical fallacies. From the moment the egg is fertilized, the genetic material from the man and woman combine to form a unique individual. The biology and genetics are very clear on this point. In fact, there is no point during gestation where we can say IT goes from being non-human to human except at the moment of conception. I sometimes illustrate this using a mathematical step function. Thus, although IT is fully dependent on the woman carrying IT, IT cannot logically be considered anything but a human being. The net result of this argument is that it's not just the woman's body anymore. Since the woman's body is now helping to grow another human being, and since the government has a duty to protect human life, it stands to reason that the government has a legitimate interest in how the woman treats IT. With abortion, there is no due process afforded IT. Abortion kills a human being, and there is no logical counter-argument.
Regarding partial birth abortion, it's just infanticide and it's evil. There's no two ways about it. The fact that all but the head of the baby is delivered before killing it is a meaningless technicality. A baby does not become human at birth. Birth is just a change in living conditions.
Except when the life of the mother is truly at stake, and the argument of self-defense may have some validity, all abortion is ultimately wrong…philosophically, logically, morally, even legally. Unfortunately, the current abortion laws ultimately contradict the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Roe v. Wade not withstanding.
One last point. We, as individuals in this society, also have a duty to protect life, and defenseless life is especially due our attention. For a woman to kill her baby for her own convenience--and this is the reason for which almost all abortions are performed--is particularly repugnant.
Fred
