In America today, we call it “abortion.” We content ourselves with allowing it to be a debatable issue, and everyone kicks the political football back and forth on whether it’s more of an outrage to kill unborn babies than it is to tell pregnant mothers not to. But why?
The phrase “woman’s right to choose” is thrown out by pro-choice proponents as if it’s some sort of magical trump card. But when did we start putting the decisions of pregnant mothers in a moral vacuum as if the motives for those decisions are unquestionable, unassailable, or infallible? When someone says they are pro-choice, what they’re really saying is that all the various choices a pregnant mother might make regarding her unborn child are equally good, equally wise, and equally valid. But does anyone, even the most ardent pro-choice adherent, really believe that consistently?
If the pregnant mother is a heroin addict or an alcoholic, and yet chooses to carry her baby to term and deliver that baby alive while still taking heroin or drinking copious amounts of booze throughout the pregnancy, does the pro-choice crowd still stand by the “woman’s right” to choose? And “my body, my choice” rallying cries? For some reason when an infant is born alive, crying and suffering pain and damage before our eyes and ears in perpetuity as a direct result of a mother’s selfish choices, the illusion of the infallibility of the mother’s choice is thrown out the window as the wicked folly it really is.
What makes the unborn child a person when the mother wants it, and a non-person when she doesn’t?
Another thing about “a woman’s right to choose” that’s never made any sense to me is how it makes the smallest difference whatsoever to the viability or intrinsic value of the life of her unborn child whether or not the mother planned to get pregnant or wants to have and raise a child.
When someone attacks a pregnant mother who wants to keep her baby, and both the pregnant mother and the child in her womb die as a result of that attack, double homicide charges are brought against the assailant.
A whopping 38 out of 50 states have fetal homicide laws, according to NCSL.org, the website for the National Conference of State Legislatures. And though each of these laws look slightly different in each of the 38 states in which they’re in effect, they all essentially say that a fetus is considered a person, and killing them except by a legal abortion procedure is murder.
On the Federal level, you have the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was signed into law in 2004, stating that,
If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
Yet the Unborn Victims of Violence Act also gives exceptions like this:
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution;
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
Riddle me this: What makes the unborn child a person when the mother wants it, and a non-person when she doesn’t? Do her feelings make the difference? Either the unborn child is a person or not, but we can’t have it both ways whenever we like for convenience sake. And since when are the feelings of the murderer the deciding factor in determining whether the killing of another human being is murder or not?
Do we have any doubts whether the unborn child is really alive? Surely not. If the child were not alive, there would be no point in an abortion. And since the child is alive, then obviously when the pregnancy is “terminated”, that child is being killed, regardless your preference for some other more polite or sanitized way of saying it. The whole point of abortion is to end a life.
So, having settled the question of whether abortion is killing, perhaps we doubt the full humanity of the fetus. Perhaps if the fetus is not human, then killing it is as morally neutral as killing a bug or rodent. But ask yourself, “why wouldn’t the child growing in its hu