|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
In a surprising statement during a town hall meeting earlier this month, presidential candidate Kamala Harris said, “I’ll tell you, there are probably many here and watching who, rightly, have made a decision that they do not believe in abortion. The point that I am making is not about changing their mind about what’s right for them or their family. It’s simply saying the government shouldn’t be making this decision.”
Really? She actually believes that many people have “rightly . . . made a decision that they do not believe in abortion?”
Then why is she promising to reinstate Roe v. Wade if elected? In her words, she “will proudly sign back into law the protections of Roe v. Wade, which basically just says it’s the person’s decision, not the government’s decision. That, in essence, is what’s behind my position.”
Doesn’t this sound reasonable? Abortion is one of the most personal decisions anyone can make, and so, if anything is “not the government’s decision,” it is this.
What Harris failed completely to address is why “many” people “rightly” oppose abortion, namely, because abortion takes the life of another human being. Could anything be more basic than that?
That’s why we have laws against murder and laws against rape, and laws against kidnapping. All of them are transgressions against another person.
That’s also why, more specifically, we have laws against infanticide, even if the baby is intolerable, even if the child has a congenital disease, even if the mother is simply incapable of caring for the little one.
Whatever the case might be, the one thing she (or the father) is not allowed to do is terminate the life of the baby. Obviously, to do so would be to commit murder.
Had Harris simply said, “We don’t believe the fetus has full personhood, and so the government has no right to impose its will on the mother,” that would have been consistent but immoral.
But what she said was this (and I paraphrase): “Yes, many people rightly oppose abortion” – by which, she obviously meant, in their minds, they have good reason to oppose it – “and I’m not trying to change your viewpoint. That’s why we need Roe reinstated. To take this out of the government’s hands and put it in the hands of the mother.”
What she missed quite incredibly is that the whole reason we want to put this in the government’s hands is because we believe that abortion commits violence against a preborn child.
To paraphrase again (but with a change of subjects), “Yes, there are many who rightly oppose slavery. That’s why we need to get the ban on slavery reversed so that you can make your choices, and others can make theirs.”
This is as nonsensical as her statement on abortion.
Slavery should be prohibited by law because it is a moral evil, and abortion should be prohibited by law because it is a moral evil.
In my new book Hearts of Compassion, Backbones of Steel: How to Discuss Controversial Topics with Love and Kindness, I do my best to present compelling arguments for the cultural positions I oppose, seeking to help us respond with more heartfelt, convincing answers.
In the chapter on abortion, I present some agonizing, hypothetical cases, including this: “Consider the story of a twelve-year-old girl whom we’ll call Angela. She was abducted and raped by a sexual predator who had just been released from jail. Who can imagine her trauma? Who can imagine how this horrific event will impact the rest of her life? And how will it affect her whole family? But this is only the beginning. To add shock to shock, Angela finds out she is pregnant even though she is not even a teenager. How can this be? As for the sexual predator, he raped two more girls before he was caught and will spend the rest of his life in prison.
“The only positive thing is that Angela can get an abortion and put an end to the nightmare without any of her friends and schoolmates knowing what happened to her. At least the horror can be hidden. At least her shame won’t be broadcast throughout her school and neighborhood. At least she won’t have to put her young body through the trauma of nine months of pregnancy. At least she won’t have to worry about giving birth to a child whose father was a serial rapist and child abuser. Abortion is obviously the compassionate choice.”
We could say in response, “But cases like this, as unspeakably tragic and evil as this is, are the rarest of rare, with abortions performed because of rape or incest making up one percent of all abortions. What about the other 99 percent?”
That may be true, but it avoids the question: how can anyone outside of this girl and her family decide her life?
In response, I share stories of women who were raped and aborted their babies, only to learn that the abortion didn’t heal the pain. And I tell the stories of some of the finest people on our planet, people who have an incredible amount of good but were conceived in rape.
I can’t do justice to these responses in full here, but they all go back to that same fundamental point: abortion snuffs out a real human life, a life with unknown potential, however tiny and still developing it may be.
So how many Pro Abortionists donate to Greenpeace or the NRDC to Save the so called Endangered Polar Bears?
If, God forbid, the harridan wins tomorrow, the sick women who vote for her will engage in the wholesale murder of the innocent for at least 4 years.
Eff the whole “my body my choice” crap. These single box wine cat ladies are soulless.
Update yes we lost, but since you’re on the topic of murder lets define it, murder is defined on the “killing of a human being by another”, emphaisis on human, and a fetus is not considered a human, the main reason is because humans are classified as living organisms whereas the fetus is not, the fetus does not classify as a human being as it is not capable of surviving outside the womb unlike the actual baby, furthermore the fetus does not breathe which according to the Victoria state goverment department of education all living things must respire to fit into the category, unlike the fetus which does not, therfore there is nothing to be murdered or any life to be taken away, also the fact you call all these women “wine cat ladies” is completly ignorant and straight up offensive, and what if a women knew her baby was going to be born with a disabilty that would give the child less chances in life like down syndrome or others, in that case the child would live a very complicated life. Please understand who you’ve voted
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Thus, the words of Thomas Jefferson and others, Jefferson the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. That preamble addresses God-given natural law/natural rights. That preamble is also the sublime philosophical basis upon which this great nation was founded.
The implication of that preamble is this: God-given natural rights apply to all people, at all times, and in all places–even to the yet unborn, destined to be born, but for an act of God or, tragically, of man.
Therefore, in addition to the profound religious arguments against this so-called “right to choose,” there is also a human rights argument-
Why should one human being be granted arbitrary power to control the mortal destiny of another, and abrogating the very basis of American liberty in the process?
It is no longer scientifically tenable to deny that every human life (even every mammal life) begins at conception. National Geographic had a full documentary series proving it. Once conceived, we have a new unique human being who will grow by its own inner directed processes that will continue until natural death, be that in an abortuary, in a tragic auto accident, or in a retirement community at the age of 98. It has human parentage and unique human DNA; it is indubitably a human person. It is against Constitutional Law to kill it. It is against Divine Law to kill it.
It is a case of obvious murder.
There are some things that are incompatible with neutrality.
Playing Devil’s advocate: If Devine Law is against the killing of another human then Devine Law must be against the killing of any other humans in war, or as punishment for murder, however we do both under legislation. If the aforementioned ARE permitted under Devine Law then why not abortion also? It’s all killing human lives? Where is the moral dividing line between one set of killings being OK but the other – abortion – is not, if we agree killing humans is against Devine Law?
The fallacy in that thinking above is that it fails to consider that government is created to both execute and defend natural law/natural rights.
Government is also prohibited from interfering in those rights (positive and negative liberty).
Good and just government defends rights; good and just government does not interfere in rights; and good and just government punishes wrong doers.
Put another way, government that does not punish wrong doers who harm others is unjust on two levels: it has at least tacitly condoned and promoted deviant behavior (not upheld natural law), and it has denied victims their natural rights (not upheld natural rights).
So, the argument posited above is really a strawman argument, with due respect.
She actually used the word “mother’. She has admitted that if you are pregnant, you are already a mother and that is the baby. Does she not realize what she has said? The bottom line is that there are too many abortions in the USA and that it is being routinely used as birth control. We really need to push adoption as a much better option.
It is curious that often if a pregnant woman has an abortion they often will dismiss it as only getting rid of a “clump of cells” but if that same woman decides to continue with the pregnancy then she’s having a “baby”. The Left has a history of using euphemisms to becloud those they want to destroy, including the unborn.
Life!
Harris and those women who deny the biological reality of womanhood willfully choose to forsake the glorious gift of life.
Their enslavement to sexual encounters bring with their “freedom” resulting pregnancies that are all-too-often as a result of impulsive actions, alcohol and drug fueled encounters where no form of birth control or protection from STD’s is involved. It is the following morning when a return to reality imposes the emotionally disabling possibility of a pregnancy. Abortion then becomes the de facto dissociative method by which these women deny responsibility for their sexually-irresponsible behavior and the reproductive results.
Being a woman capable of becoming pregnant and nurturing new life developing within our womb is a most precious gift; one that should deeply define a woman’s character and her sexual availability.
Instead, women today sexually parade themselves as a commodity for casual “hook ups”, paid viewing ( Only Fans) and then viciously rail against men as their oppressors. WHAT??!
No, it is their repetitive sexual encounters that bespeak their haunting indifference, patronized as “sexual freedom” Then, they cannot understand why men of values and virtue are totally uninterested in them for anything other than that by which they have defined themselves in both thought and deed. The “my body, my choice” is a morally bankrupt mantra of absolute selfishness!
Knowing that when fertilization occurs, upon the first cellular division, the existence of a new life is in gestational development. and once women face this well known, scientific reality they will recognize abortion for what it really is; the willful tyranny against women and against our reproductive gift to nurture life–both within the womb and after birth.
It is n all ways a culture of death and destruction.
First, we need a translation: Reproductive Health Care is a euphemism for ABORTION CARE. Second, “Your Body” is NOT your body, it belongs to God who made it for you to reside in while you decide where you want to spend Eternity. And Third, your incubating baby’s body in the womb ALSO belongs to God, and you DO NOT have the right to “Dispose” of it!
“…you DO NOT have the right to “Dispose” of it!”
Does that mean you also believe we do not have the right to kill any enemy during war? Or put to death a murderer? Those bodies also belong to God, no?