The emotionalism of the abortion debate sometimes compels people to make dumb arguments.
As in the case of this op-ed piece.
To his credit, he at least tries to see both sides of the story, which is a lot more than I case say for many proponents of legalized abortion.
After recounting anecdotes about women he knew who had abortions, he said:
Please don’t tell me that all three of them didn’t put in front of themselves the interests of their own baby.They made a choice thinking the best for their unborn child.
How obtuse can you get?
Consider for a moment, if we used that same standard on born people. Imagine, we unilaterally took the decision to take another human being's life "in their own best interest".
It would violate every notion of morality that is commonly held today.
But when it's applied to unborn children-- well that's okay. He also says:
But then when they made this decision it was not even a child inside them, there was only a sequence of DNA.
That opinion is blind. A "sequence" of DNA does not kick you. A "sequence of DNA" does not have a beating heart, or brainwaves or sucks his thumb.
I can only say that calling a fetus a "sequence of DNA" is willful ignorance.
But most of all, it will save lives. Not the lives of a DNA sequence, but the lives of women who, despite the legal punishment, have taken the decision to risk their own life by going to the butchery for the abortion with an incredible amount of damage to their health and their soul because of the memory - this is going to be my last story.
Did you ever notice that the pro-abortion people cannot come to terms with the notion that abortion takes a human life, at least on a biological level?
These women risk their lives, yes: they risk their lives to kill.
Should they not be accountable for their actions?
If women are not to be victims, they can't be treated as helpless and unaccountable, even when they're desperate. People may be victims of circumstance: they're not helpless when it comes to their own actions.
What it all boils down to is that the exercise of this right to a woman's autonomy results in a dead baby.
When does the exercise of any right produce that result?
It should be obvious that the right to life trumps any other right.
The weakness of the pro-abortion movement, and the key to its ultimate demise, is that it cannot state its case in plain English without laying bare the horror of its position.
It simply cannot say: abortion takes the life of a human being. It's plain scientific fact, but it cannot admit that, all moral and metaphysicalconsiderations aside. That is why it must wrap its rhetoric and euphemism. It must keep the focus completely on the woman's side of the issue, without ever showing what goes on to the fetus.
That is the mark of an intellectually dishonest movement. It cannot lay open the whole issue to scrutiny. It cannot allow the actions being debated to be spoken of in plain English, without euphemism or intellectualization.
Did you ever notice that when pro-aborts accuse pro-lifers of showing fake aborted fetus pictures, they never offer to show what real aborted fetus pictures look like?
How are we to verify their claims that pro-life pictures are fake if they never show the real ones?
What do they have to hide?
Trackback to The BullWinkle Blog.
