'In the end it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.'
- Abraham Lincoln -

Monday, March 05, 2012

What Abortion Is & Isn't

As I've been saying for years, those who cling to the detached notion that abortion is nothing more than "a woman's right to choose" must do so because any alternative requires that they confront that little mass of flesh and sinew with that little beating heart that gets aborted.  And that they shall not do.

So along comes this pair of academics who now take the abortion issue to the next level.  Newborns can be abortion targets too.  Because they too aren't fully developed human beings.  And the inconvenience they potentially cause to their mothers trumps their right to life.  So off with their heads.

What now?

Now those who refuse to address the issue are going to have to.  From "Article Advocating 'After-Birth Abortion' Mugs Liberals with Reality":
Conservatives were horrified when the Journal of Medical Ethics published an article advocating "after-birth abortion" for handicapped, or just inconvenient, babies. They are correct that it is a disgusting piece of amoral analysis, but that is its virtue. As much as conservatives hate it, progressives hate it more. Many are convinced that it's a plant by the pro-life crowd. What progressives cannot articulate, but intuitively understand, is that by applying a reductio ad absurdum approach to the notion of abortion, the article forces pro-abortion people to confront the Big Lie that underpins their willingness to terminate a pregnancy, even an advanced one.

For the pro-abortion crowd, the problem with the article's analysis is that it reveals the amoral, illogical, unscientific approach justifying the current no-holds-barred approach to abortion. The article says a baby is not a person, but only a potential person. The pro-abortionist says the fetus is not a baby, but only potential baby. "It" (with "It" being the proto-person) begins as a zygote, then becomes a thing indistinguishable from a similarly situated chicken or a dog thing, and then slowly develops into a potential human. While in the womb, It does not breath or eat, nor does It think or have an awareness of itself or of others. It is a simulacrum of a person; It looks like a baby but lacks minimum human attributes. Being un-human, It therefore has no right to life.

Many pro-abortion folks are uncomfortably aware, at least at a subliminal level, that this is a Big Lie. With modern medicine, fetuses that have passed the 24-week stage can become part of the breathing, eating, communicating, aware, thinking world, simply by being born. More importantly, biological reality is that all fetuses, from conception onward, are nascent persons. Just as life outside the womb is a continuum from cradle to grave, with the soft, fuzzy baby becoming the desiccated centenarian, so too is there a continuum within the womb, as the zygote transitions into a fully fledged -- and viable -- infant.
This reality begs the question, one that we never confront: What is that mass of flesh that's being aborted? What is it?

As long as people focus on "a woman's right to choose" - one that libertarian-inclined Americans like me are more than willing to acknowledge - they will never deal with that little beating heart. But the latest trend in abortion doctrine - see above - may require that they do just that.

Time to face reality. What is it exactly that's getting aborted?  And what group of human beings is next?

- - -

Bottom line: You have the right to choose.  Choose to do the right thing.  Please don't stop that beating heart you created.

- - -

By the way, did you catch the news out of Richmond about the protest that took place at the state Capitol yesterday?  America's feminists gathered there to demonstrate against a government action that doesn't exist (sign: "KEEP YOUR LAWS OUT OF MY VAGINA"; laws that don't enter same).

Their demand?  The "right to choose."

The world of illusion.