In summary, a woman nearly six months pregnant arrived at an abortion clinic for for an abortion. Upon arrival, she went into labor and delivered a live baby. One of the clinic’s owners cut the umbilical cord of the baby without clamping it, allowing the baby to bleed out, and then put the child in a biohazard bag and threw it in the dumpster. Full article here.
Now, the depravity and desensitization in this act is obvious to anyone with respect for human life. I won’t waste any time arguing against those who disagree. It’s a waste of good time and rhetoric on callous minds. Those who see no issue with this at least remain consistent with their conviction to Pro Choice.
However, may I point out some obvious inconsistencies of people supporting abortion who condemned this act? Yes – in this article it was reported that even those who support abortion rights were crying out against this act, calling it “disturbing”.
I will say this: No one supporting abortion rights are in a position to cry out against this atrocity. They must resist their (God-given) impulse to be disgusted, or reevaluate their position. Lets break this down with logic.
In the United States a person can legally abort a baby up to 24 weeks after conception for almost any reason under the protection of privacy laws. Allow me to ask the obvious question: what is the difference between killing a fetus while its inside the womb, and killing it at the same age outside of the womb? That is the main difference in question here! The only reason Pro Choicers have an issue with this case is several inches of distance in physical space from the mother’s womb. What has changed? Older babies have been killed and no one raises any questions because it was done while in the womb.
The story explicitly states that it’s not uncommon for babies born at 23 weeks to survive. It makes no logical sense, if a person supports abortion, to have any ethical problems with what happened in that clinic. If the fourteenth amendment won’t grant a 23-week-old fetus protection rights while in the womb, why should it grant it protection when it has even less of a chance of survival when its born prematurely?
This only exposes the stupidity of the court-ruled decision not to protect the rights of the unborn in Roe vs. Wade. And, I might add, the emotional response as a result of this is just one clue why it makes no sense. The only real difference is visual. People are less emotionally attached to something they cannot see. But once we can see it with our own eyes, emotions inevitably engage. People are visual.
(I might also add the reason this woman got an abortion wasn’t because she was raped, or her life was at risk, or because she had been using drugs. The article states, “She concluded she didn't have the resources or maturity to raise a child …”)
My wife is now pregnant. We went in for our first ultra sound at nine weeks and by that time our baby had a beating hear, a complete head with arms and legs and other body organs. At nine weeks she moved around in the womb and reacted to the prodding of the tool used to photograph it. This here is an image at nine weeks:
This is an image at thirteen weeks, where she now is developing her ability to hear:
Here’s my conclusion. Abortion-rights supporters seem to be caught up in the emotions of human rights. They see a woman and conclude that woman has certain rights over her own body, to do with it as she pleases. But when they see a 23-week fetus outside of that woman’s body, they also are moved emotionally by what they see and conclude that fetus suddenly has rights. But as long as the womb conceals the form of a human, no emotion will engage to protect the rights of that human. In other words, it seems people are building their worldviews on the fluid foundations of their feelings. And when feelings shift and move (as they always do) contradictory positions result. One reason most Christians are Pro Life is because Christians agree they don’t belong to themselves, but to God. We have been ransomed by him and belong to ourselves no more. Therefore, the fetus is God’s fetus, and not the mothers, and she has no right to terminate that life, no matter how young.
If I may borrow the words of C. S. Lewis, “I am only trying to put the whole problem the right way round, to make it clear that the value given to the testimony of any feeling must depend on our whole philosophy, not our whole philosophy on a feeling” (p. 201).
Works Cited
Lewis, C.S. “Religion: Reality or Substitute” in The Timeless Writings of C.S. Lewis. New York: Inspirational Press. 198-202.
No comments:
Post a Comment