The subject of abortion is never an easy one. People quickly divide into two camps and spend their time in heated rhetoric. It is hard to imagine what a reasonable compromise would consist of; only the ‘Judgment of Solomon’ comes to mind. Often times the argument breaks down on religious grounds. I will attempt to avoid this pitfall by dealing with, at least initially, the secular argument exclusively.
Most secularists think they have a monopoly on science and reason. So let’s begin by dispensing with two of the most pervasive justifications for abortion on the basis that they are scientifically unsustainable.
The first favored argument is, “A woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body.” If this is a valid argument, why is it not used to justify drug addiction? Additionally, how can it be illegal for a terrorist to have an explosive device implanted into his abdomen? Can we all agree on at least one of these restrictions, or is public safety also to be sacrificed at the altar of abortion? But even these arguments are irrelevant because we are not talking about a woman’s own body. Consider – in criminal cases the gold standard for identifying people is their DNA. The DNA, even of twins, is unique to each individual. The DNA of the mother is always different from the DNA of her child. This is true even in the ‘zygote’s’ earliest stages. It is not the body of the mother with which we concern ourselves; it is the body of the baby.
The second favored argument is a feigned confusion as to when life begins. A woman’s unfertilized egg is alive – part of the woman’s living tissue. In order to remain alive, the egg must be fertilized. Lacking fertilization, the egg will be sloughed off. The life of most eggs is a short one. The sperm are also alive. Upon entering a woman’s uterus, the sperm have a short window of opportunity to find and fertilize an egg. If unsuccessful, the sperm too will have a short life. We will not concern ourselves with the unsuccessful sperm or the unfertilized egg. Their normal life span is short and of little relevance to this discussion. The point is, as soon as the egg is fertilized, it is both alive and human. Without regard to what the zygote looks like at various stages of development, brought to term, the ‘zygote,’ ‘fetus’ or ‘tissue mass,’ can never become a turtle, a fish or a bird. It will result in a human being and nothing else. In short, life, a new human life in this case, begins at conception. Science and reason support no other conclusion.
Those who approve of abortion, even when restricted to the early stages of pregnancy, need to realize and admit what they are advocating. “Pro-choice” may sound politically correct, but more accurately, and at the risk of being redundant, it is politically dishonest. It conveys to one person, the power of life or death over another person, a person who, still in the womb, is the very definition of innocence. It grants the ultimate power to one person over another. It is a right granted by humans to humans, in a country whose foundation is rooted in the realization that our rights are “God-given.” If this foundational principle is accurate, the challenge for pro-choice advocates is to argue that a mother has a “God-given” right to abort her baby.
Consider the following three scenarios to see how absolutely whimsical our legal system has become under a reign of abortion on demand.
Scenario #1:
A woman, obviously pregnant, touches her belly and assumes a look of resignation. She looks over at the clock, touches the hand of the person lying next to her (spouse, partner, roommate, we can’t be sure) and says, “It’s time.” They get in the car and head toward the hospital. In another part of town, a drunk staggers from a bar. Shielding his eyes from the afternoon sun, he fumbles with his keys and falls into the driver’s seat. He heads off in a most unsteady fashion towards the intersection through which our pregnant woman is about to pass. The drunk fails to notice the red light. He is driving without a license because of numerous similar offences. Speeding through the red light, the drunk ‘T-bones’ the car in which the pregnant woman is a passenger. Both the pregnant woman and her unborn child are killed instantly. In accordance with the laws in this state, the drunk is charged with two counts of capital murder and as such is eligible for the death penalty.
Scenario #2:
A woman, obviously pregnant, touches her belly and assumes a look of resignation. She looks over at the clock, touches the hand of the person lying next to her (spouse, partner, roommate, we can’t be sure) and says, “It’s time.” They get in the car and head toward the hospital. In another part of town, a drunk staggers from a bar. Shielding his eyes from the afternoon sun, he fumbles with his keys and falls into the driver’s seat. He heads off in a most unsteady fashion towards the intersection through which our pregnant woman is about to pass. The drunk fails to notice the red light. He is driving without a license because of numerous similar offences. Speeding through the red light, the drunk ‘T-bones’ the car in which the pregnant woman is a passenger. The impact kills the unborn child but the pregnant woman eventually recovers from all of her injuries. In accordance with the laws in this state, the drunk is charged with one count of capital murder and as such is eligible for life in prison.
Scenario #3:
A woman, obviously pregnant, touches her belly and assumes a look of resignation. She looks over at the clock, touches the hand of the person lying next to her (spouse, partner, roommate, we can’t be sure) and says, “It’s time.” They get in the car and head toward the hospital. In another part of town, a drunk staggers from a bar. Shielding his eyes from the afternoon sun, he fumbles with his keys. As he removes the key from the unlocked car door he inadvertently drops it into a storm drain. He falls into the driver’s seat and fast asleep. Later, after he has slept it off, he will call his roommate to bring him his spare key. The pregnant woman arrives at the hospital and enters a late term abortion clinic through the side door. The baby dies. The doctor is paid. The no-longer pregnant woman goes home with nothing but regrets for a series of poor decisions. No one is charged with any offence in this scenario. Apparently, as a society, we are all OK with this.
It is easy to justify the harsh treatment of the drunk in the first two scenarios. His callous disregard for the safety of others, despite numerous warnings, makes him a very unsympathetic character. The death penalty or life in prison will make sense to many. But even in scenario #3, the baby loses its life. In scenario #3 there is, by legal definition, a conspiracy, a hired assassin, a contractor and a wheelman. And there is no doubt about premeditation. In the first two scenarios, there is no premeditation, just a wanton disregard for the lives of others. This legal capriciousness is hard to justify on any reasonable legal or moral grounds. I challenge the reader to try and I welcome your comments. ~ Terrell AronSpeer
AUTHORS NOTE: Some may claim that social issues have no place in the Tea Party. However, if the information in Jonathan Cahn’s, The Harbinger, is correct, all of the good work done by the Tea Party will have been for nothing until we get this right. I have shifted my focus because I think Cahn may be right. To decide for yourself, checkout the Book Review section on the last page of the June Sentinel which will be posted in Tea Party 911 after June 15, or you could just read The Harbinger for yourself.
