I need some help. Maybe I’m too old. Maybe I’m unenlightened. Maybe reason has failed me.
Did we just have a major politico/moral squabble over whether anyone has the “right” to terminate another human being’s life in the womb after 20 weeks?
That’s right, at 5 months.
Save for the final development of some organs, that is a fully formed human. (Not that it makes a difference as “human” does not equal structural perfection or completeness.)
Were we debating over this?
One side feels no one has the right to terminate (more so, dismember) another human’s life. Not even the parents.
One side feels “it is a woman’s choice” to aggressively enter and dismember another human’s body and end their existence with no consent whatsoever…(as if any would consent)
-that choice transcends his or hers in the womb.
One side is for life (of the infant)
Another is for death (of the infant)
Now you can’t say “a women’s choice” because once that infant breathes on its own it becomes murder if the killing proceeds.
Nor can logic say, “If we disallow the murder of the infant in a clinic then the mother will resort to “coat hangers, knitting needles, and turpentine in the alley.””
One should not kill an infant in the clinic (the mulch looks amazingly human incidentally).
Nor should one kill the child in the alley. One should not allow the clinic to flourish that the alley be evaded. Both are wrong. Both must be refused.
Unless we say the parent has more right to live than the child.
Nor can you say, “But what kind of life will this child have?” I doubt any in dire situations would volunteer for termination so as to deter the disadvantageous. I certainly doubt also whether any can prophesy what the child’s life would be, nor that pragmatics would justify death.
Now, I recognize there may be extenuating factors.
- endangering the mother’s life
While some women have not seen these as factors, others have…
but for argument’s sake I’ll concede these.
(though my adopted nephew born of rape whose wedding I performed, now a father, would not. Nor countless women with cancer who refused chemo that their child could be born unto their own early death. I’ve known 3.)
For argument’s sake lets just consider a conception “out of wedlock” or a wife and husband’s “unwanted pregnancy.” These that form the enormous majority of abortions. There is one constant. The act of conception was consensual. 100% if reason stands.
The issue now . . . is convenience. Not anyone’s life. Does convenience trump another’s right to life?
That cannot be.
I was watching women vehement for the right to kill their children. I was watching politicians whom I have trusted with my life and future (many of them) voting their support.
Maybe I’m just misguided on the assumptions of human dignity.
Maybe I’m antiquated on motherhood.
Maybe we’ve gone beyond accepting responsibility for actions.
Maybe I have too much faith in human reason
or maybe I trust politicians to do right too often (Who is Wendy Davis?)
Or maybe I over estimated Americans
or under estimated Satan,
but probably . . .I’ve just lived too long.
If you know something I don’t: that its OK to kill an infant to spare adult inconvenience –
please write and enlighten me.
Copyright 2013 Tommy Nelson