You're probably thinking, "Don't get all emotional on us Jacob." Well, sorry.
Seriously, I flipped the channel over to Rachel Maddow the other night because I feel I need to hear everything that's being put out there. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment in that way so it's my own fault for watching, but this one idea is a real pet peeve of mine. I truly can't stress enough just how untrue this view I'm about to reveal is. The notion I'm referring to is the one that claims that Pro-Life advocates don't care about rape and incest victims.
The claim has been taken to my face multiple times with virtually the same conversation every time, and twice with an ultra-liberal English teacher. It goes like this.
*shocked voice* "You think that it's wrong for a rape victim to have an abortion?!"
"Yes"
*appalled voice* "You would force her to carry the rapist's child through a pregnancy?!"
"Yes, and try to offer help as muc-"
*horrified voice* "That's horrible! And you call probably yourself a Christian, don't you?!" *sneer*
But then no one actually listens to why. Why are pro-lifers against abortion in the first place? Is the pro-life movement just a huge reversion back to pre-19th Amendment days? Just a massive undertaking by men and women both who want to take away the rights of women?
NO! People who insinuate this are lying!
What are truly pro-life people fighting for? Let's make a brief list.
1) To end abortion because it is killing a person, and human life is sacred (though pretty much no one know what that word "sacred" means anymore).
2) To end distribution of abortifacient drugs. Those cause abortion too. Consistency is necessary, so this is not an optional view for any pro-lifer.
3) To end the death penalty where possible. All human life is sacred, so anyone who is truly pro-"life" would never support a punitive death penalty.
4) To aid all current/future/possible mothers in every feasible way so as to protect the life of the child and to give the mother the support she needs to carry the baby to term.
Wow, that sounds "surprisingly" positive.
Yes, rape victims should carry their babies to term, but by no means should they do it alone. The situation isn't the issue though. As much dignity, love and care as we owe to the pregnant victim, we owe the same dignity, love and care to that human life inside her. Why? Because it's is human, and alive just as much as you and I are. No one can deny that fact because biology proves it. It has a full set of human DNA and is living and growing from the very moment of conception.
But the mother will have to carry a living reminder of the worst moments of her life for 9 months!?
- - Would you rather her turn herself from a victim into a predator?
Ok, it's alive, but it's not a person. It doesn't have rights.
- - Really? What if you're wrong? We've been wrong about this kind of thing before haven't we? In Andre Schutten's article "Do we know what's human? We've been wrong before", he gives us a few examples of that.
1) “In the eyes of the law… the slave is not a person.” - Virginia Supreme Court, 1858
2) “An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution.” - George Canfield, American Law Review, 1881
3) The meaning of “qualified persons” does not include women. - Supreme Court of Canada, 1928
4) “The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews… as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.” - German Supreme Court decision, 1936
5) “The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights.” - Supreme Court of Canada, 1997
Wow, so what if the government is wrong again on deciding who has personhood and who doesn't get the human rights they deserve? Who is actually "behind the times" and will hopefully soon make their way through the swamps of delusion into the currently disregarded truth.
But her situation should allow her to choose what to do with her own body?
- - I won't disagree that she can do what she wants with her body, but let's look at her situation in relation to the other human life still in the picture that is so often disregarded as inconsequential. We shall look at this through Pascal's lens as it is focused for our eyes by Peter Kreeft. Kreeft begins by making the important distinction between life and personhood. Plants and animals are alive, but aren't persons deserving rights.
From there we must ask the question, "Is the human fetus a person?" There are two possibilities: yes or no. By taking one of these positions all of us are either right or wrong. Are you with me so far? So, by looking at these facts objectively we can derive that there are four options as seen in this nifty chart I made:
But the mother will have to carry a living reminder of the worst moments of her life for 9 months!?
- - Would you rather her turn herself from a victim into a predator?
Ok, it's alive, but it's not a person. It doesn't have rights.
- - Really? What if you're wrong? We've been wrong about this kind of thing before haven't we? In Andre Schutten's article "Do we know what's human? We've been wrong before", he gives us a few examples of that.
1) “In the eyes of the law… the slave is not a person.” - Virginia Supreme Court, 1858
2) “An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution.” - George Canfield, American Law Review, 1881
3) The meaning of “qualified persons” does not include women. - Supreme Court of Canada, 1928
4) “The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews… as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.” - German Supreme Court decision, 1936
5) “The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights.” - Supreme Court of Canada, 1997
Wow, so what if the government is wrong again on deciding who has personhood and who doesn't get the human rights they deserve? Who is actually "behind the times" and will hopefully soon make their way through the swamps of delusion into the currently disregarded truth.
But her situation should allow her to choose what to do with her own body?
- - I won't disagree that she can do what she wants with her body, but let's look at her situation in relation to the other human life still in the picture that is so often disregarded as inconsequential. We shall look at this through Pascal's lens as it is focused for our eyes by Peter Kreeft. Kreeft begins by making the important distinction between life and personhood. Plants and animals are alive, but aren't persons deserving rights.
From there we must ask the question, "Is the human fetus a person?" There are two possibilities: yes or no. By taking one of these positions all of us are either right or wrong. Are you with me so far? So, by looking at these facts objectively we can derive that there are four options as seen in this nifty chart I made:
One by one let's look at the possibilities.
~ Upper Left: If the human fetus is a person and we're sure of it then abortion is murder. So, no matter what abortion is wrong.
~ Upper Right: The human fetus is a person but we're either not sure or we think it's not a person. Killing a fetus in this situation is like running over a man shaped pile of clothes with a car that actually turns out to be a man. This would be manslaughter, and it is wrong.
~ Lower Left: In this situation we have some way of knowing for sure that the human fetus is not a person, and so it wouldn't have rights and abortion would not be wrong.
~ Lower Right: The human fetus is not a person but we don't know for sure. Even in this case abortion is a criminal and morally impermissible act. The act would be the same as shooting a gun into a bush or fumigating a room that may or may not be occupied by a person. These actions are criminally negligent by legal standards and morally defined as unacceptable action. The clothes analogy applies here as well.
We see that logic is 75% against abortion and a shaky 25% for it and this is completely objectively. That 25% is also unusable as evidence since the science can't prove otherwise and even if it could abortion wouldn't be a good thing. Abortion would be wrong to encourage even in that situation because by being what develops into a person it deserves at least some dignity.
So Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell, please stop saying pro-lifers hate rape victims. It's just a outright lie. In contrast to what you tell people about us, we love every human life and we certainly want the very best care for all rape victims in their terrible circumstances. BUT, the ends don't justify the means. Situations outside the womb don't change the very real situation inside the womb.
I realize it's all driven politics but since when does that make lying about the other side ok? Never, but people always seem to think it does. We can't tolerate this.
It's propaganda driven mind control. Escape it.
Peace.
Yes, there is a point in a pregnancy when abortion should not be allowed, but that is left up to debate.
ReplyDeleteI'm just tired of men deciding what women can and can't do. Go get pregnant, depressed, hate everyday that you live with something inside you stealing your life force, go through the pain of birth, the irreversible physical changes, bringing up the child or adopting it out knowing that part of you is missing but can't stand the sight of it, go through MORE depression and get back to me. Its not only a physical toll but mental, and no one should be forced through pregnancy.
Do you see how you just proved everything that I was saying?
DeleteTrust me, I know pregnancy is more intense than I'll ever be able to understand. Heck, PMS is more intense than I'll ever be able to understand. I totally agree with you that it's ferociously difficult and draining, but that's not the issue at hand.
You're taking the woman's *quality of life* and saying that it is more important that the baby's *life itself*. You, whether you realize it or not, infer that it doesn't matter if the baby is a living person or not. If the quality of life for the woman is at risk, the baby's life is inconsequential. By only focusing on the woman's circumstances, you disregard the human life inside of her.
Basically, you have said that the ends justify the means. This is a very dangerous road to go down and I hope that you consider the effect of the argument you just made.
Also, don't think of it as forcing a woman to go through pregnancy. That's not what is happening. The woman going through the pregnancy is the effect (not the action) of what is happening. The action is keeping the baby alive, and that is a very positive thing.
PS It's not simply "men deciding what women can and can't do." It's men and women alike standing up for the lives of the children. It's not oppression; it's liberation! There are just as many pro-life women out there as there are men.
Delete