Where We Should Draw The Line On Outlawing Trans Bathrooms
It’s an odd sort of punishment to force someone to behave a certain way so you can give them more money.Read More »
I feel like singing the Hallelujah Chorus right now. No more “safe, legal and rare” canard. No more lies about how an unborn child is just a “bunch of cells”. The left is finally coming “out of the closet” on the truth that life begins at conception and abortion is murder. Or at least, one author on the left is doing so…Salon author Mary Elizabeth Williams who is the author of an article entitled “So what if abortion ends life?”
It’s honest at least. And that’s a step in the right direction. Better by far than the constant and repetitive attempts to deceive young females with all the other random dishonest claims that the pro-abortion crowd has used over the years.
For those of us who attempt to live our lives within a scope of moral absolutes, the question of abortion being the equivalent of murder has always been a relatively simple question to answer. Yes, it is the equivalent of murder. Our moral standards define various forms of behavior as being right while other forms of behavior are wrong. Murder is wrong. Most of us have also learned to stay away from relative moral standards as much as possible. Why? Because it can be highly tempting to want to justify behaviors that are wrong. Human beings are simply human. No more and no less. We all face temptations to engage in wrong behaviors from time to time. It’s how we respond to those temptations that matters, i.e. whether we resist those temptations or whether we allow them to get the better of us.
For those who don’t live within a scope of moral absolutes, the following type of justification can be relatively common:
Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.
We’re so intimidated by the wingnuts, we get spooked out of having these conversations. We let the archconservatives browbeat us with the concept of “life,” using their scare tactics on women and pushing for indefensible violations like forced ultrasounds. Why? Because when they wave the not-even-accurate notion that “abortion stops a beating heart” they think they’re going to trick us into some damning admission. They believe that if we call a fetus a life they can go down the road of making abortion murder. And I think that’s what concerns the hell out of those of us who support unrestricted reproductive freedom.
But we make choices about life all the time in our country. We make them about men and women in other nations. We make them about prisoners in our penal system. We make them about patients with terminal illnesses and accident victims. We still have passionate debates about the justifications of our actions as a society, but we don’t have to do it while being bullied around by the vague idea that if you say we’re talking about human life, then the jig is up, rights-wise.
Those are portions of Ms. Williams article, which ends with the comments of
And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.
Yes, the temptation to justify wrong behavior is definitely being exhibited in this article, is it not? Of course, one of the problems of relative moral standards is that it sears the human conscience causing human beings to become numb on the inside to the low standards consuming their life and the scope of wrong behavior that they are willingly embracing.
But even beyond the question of moral standards and human behavior, I wonder if Ms. Williams has actually considered this question in light of the rule of law. What is being promoted by the pro-abortion movement is for an individual to take the responsibility upon themselves to define whether or not another human being has the right to life and selective adherence to the rule of law.
In our nation, we have laws prohibiting deliberate, intentional, cold-blooded murder. As citizens of this nation, we can selectively choose to violate a law, but if we do so, we must be prepared to accept the scope of consequences that exist as punishment for failing to adhere to the law, correct? That’s how the rule of law works. We don’t have the right to selectively impose the rule of man (with ourselves as judges for the law) over the rule of law on a whim then simply justify our actions based on our professed “rights”. We don’t have the right to take the law into our own hands. Especially when it causes harm to other s within our society.
Yet the life of the innocent and unprotected “is a life worth sacrificing” according to Ms. Williams.
Unborn children definitely fall into that category of “others”, don’t they? With no voice of their own and unable to stand up for themselves…to protect themselves from harm. If the pro-abortion society didn’t understand before why those of us who value human life have been as adamant as we have in our fight against abortion, perhaps they will understand this…we won’t leave them to stand alone. Those unborn children with no voices. We won’t leave them to stand alone with no one to champion their right to life. Even if you do desert them, we won’t.