I wrote some of this, in response to a young lady's
comment to a recent Facebook post on abortion, in which she said, "The
government needs to stay out of our vaginas.”
First of all, I believe the proper phrase is, “Keep the government out of our
uteruses,” since that’s from where the fetus is in danger of being aborted.
However, in my reply, I went along with her terminology just to avoid
confusion. Secondly, those who rely solely on religion to counter their
“pro-choice” or pro-abortion opponents will never win over a significant
segment of them. It’s just a simple fact that not everyone shares the same
religious views and almost everyone becomes offended by any attempt to
challenge those already ingrained. Once offended, almost everyone will block
out any opposing view or opinion, regardless of logic or veracity. It’s just
human nature. I believe the most cogent argument against abortion is a
non-religious one. Now, I’m not a religious person, so this is my standard
debate position, anyway.
While all of the other replies were from the religious angle, I suggested she
consider the issue in a little more depth, from the perspective of the argument
she used. What about the "vaginas" of the unborn girls, who are
killed through abortions? Do those possessors of "vaginas" not have
rights, as well?
Individuals have rights, along with the responsibility to not infringe on the
rights of others. Once another person is conceived in the womb, he/she
consequently gains the natural right to life, just as the woman carrying that
child.
Consider this scenario. A pregnant woman is driving, after having left her
doctor's office, where she'd had a sonogram of her healthy baby. A drunk driver
runs through an intersection, causing the death of the baby. First, in order
for there to be a death, there must first be a life. Second, would you agree
the drunk driver should be held criminally responsible for that death?
Now, what if that pregnant woman was driving to an abortion clinic, to
terminate the pregnancy, when the same collision occurs? Should the drunk
driver still be held criminally responsible? Or, because the woman does not
want the child, did "it" cease to be a life, at the moment of her
decision?
As another example, what if a person
traveled all 50 states, randomly seeking out pregnant women who, once found, he
forcefully struck in the abdomen, intentionally causing the deaths of the
fetuses? There are myriad statutes defining the terms of gestation, during
which abortions are permitted. A common phrase, in making such definitions is
"point of viability." Prior to that "point," life is not
considered to exist. Consequently, our fictitious serial killer should not be
prosecuted for murder. Again, because a death necessarily acknowledges a
preexisting life.
There was an interesting case unfolding in Colorado, recently. Reportedly, a
hospital error resulted in the death of an unborn child. The father sued the
hospital, for wrongful death and negligence. However, the hospital argued for
the dismissal of the case, based on Colorado's statutes regarding the time
frame of a pregnancy, when abortion was permissible. Basically, if the state
did not recognize the presence of life, for the purpose of abortion, it could
not then hold that a life exists, during the same time frame, in this case. So,
necessarily, the hospital could not be held liable for causing the death, if there
was no life to begin with.
Another of the young lady’s comments contained the argument that “it’s human
nature to want to have sex.” Of course, being the opinionated person that I am,
I couldn’t let that one go unanswered either.
Practically every action a person undertakes carries with it inherent
responsibilities. Voluntarily engaging in an activity, which has the
possibility of producing what they perceive as a negative outcome, should be
conducted with the expectation of having to live with that outcome.
If a person gets behind the wheel of a car, while intoxicated, there is the
possibility of causing harm to another. If a person behaves foolishly with a
loaded firearm, ditto. If a person breaks into the home of another, who is
armed to protect himself/herself or their family. . . well, you get the
picture. If a person isn't willing to accept the possible consequences, they
should abstain from that behavior.
The primary purpose of sex, among all mammals, is procreation and it is always
a possible outcome. The same applies to unprotected sex, which carries with it
the possibility of contracting an STD. If a person is not willing to accept the
consequences of either, then he/she has the personal responsibility of doing
whatever is necessary to prevent that consequence, up to and including
temporary abstinence.
Regardless of whether or not "it's human nature to want to have sex",
it is not a life sustaining activity, like eating, drinking, or breathing, so
that argument is a straw man. People may want to do a lot of things; many of
which have potentially negative outcomes or unintended consequences. The
question is, is the risk worth the reward?
The entire issue of abortion comes down to one thing. Absent all the spin,
rhetoric, hyperbole, straw men, and ad hominems, the question is simply “What
constitutes life?”
How often have we seen or heard headlines such as, “Have scientists discovered
life on another planet?” And, when the possible “evidence” is exposed, it is
never more than the mere existence of water or what may be a fossilized
microbe. But, people are always eager to accept that as sufficient proof of
life. Meanwhile, a woman on this planet, with two independent heartbeats, is
not considered to be two autonomous lives. Yes, I used that word knowing the
small life inside the womb is wholly dependent; just as dependent as the one
day old child, the severely handicapped, the disabled, and the elderly. But,
those factors do not diminish one’s right to life, nor the protection of that
right. The law then rightly protects them.
Yet somehow, although the horrendous institution of slavery was abolished
nearly 200 years ago, it has become acceptable to many, including the courts,
for a woman to claim ownership of the second heartbeat, along with the power to
dispense with that life, with impunity. Further, it is expected of government
to not just permit the arbitrary quenching of life, but to also enable it, even
at the expense of those who wish to not participate.
I wholeheartedly support keeping government out of women’s uteruses. But, once
she’s voluntarily engaged in an activity, which resulted in the formation of
another life, it’s no longer just about her. Then, that life has become,
“endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and it is incumbent upon the
“Government instituted among men” to “provide for the common defence, promote
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” of that life.
How is it possible for a woman to consciously invoke a right to her own life
and uterus, without also acknowledging the same for the life growing within
her? After all, she did voluntarily participate in its creation.
