How many times have you encountered a person that will tell you that, “although they are personally against abortion, they would not force their belief on others.” I’ve encountered this attitude on a regular basis. This view is also big among well-known politicians such as President Obama, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and many others. I find this position to be, not only without any merit, but to be devious at best and self-delusional at worst. Pro-abortion advocates, as I call pro-choice advocates, I’m sure, will take offense to this view. My position is not to be offensive, but to provide some clarity on the issue. This is simply dodging the issue.
Let’s step back in time and go back to the slave era in the United States. In that period we heard similar talk – “I’m really not for slavery, but who am I to tell you that you can’t have a slave.” “I’m personally against slavery, but I don’t think I should force my opinion on others; after all, slavery is part of our constitution.” What would you say to such a person? This is the same delusional reasoning that propels this position today. It cannot be defended or rationally explained. The only way you could explain it is if you believe that an unborn is the same as a bad tooth or a slave is not a human being. This is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said about Dred Scott in a ruling in the 1857 Dred Scott vs. Sandford decision. Dred Scott, a freed slave, was ruled not to be a person by the Court and therefore could be treated as property.
Some will say that abortion is in our Constitution. Well, please tell me what page and verse I could find such a description in our Constitution? It is not there. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision could not find it there either. They ruled that abortion is part of “privacy.” But wait – privacy is not in the Constitution either. The Court inferred it, meaning they put it there.
If you watched the last confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts or Sam Alito during the Bush Administration, you heard a legal term called stare decisis, meaning to let a decision stand after it has been established. Well, let’s look at this idea and see if it holds constitutional muster. By this definition, a black man or woman would still not be a person today. In 1896 The U.S. Supreme Court, in Plessy vs. Ferguson , ruled that blacks and whites could be separate but equal, meaning that apartheid was legal and Constitutional in the United States. We’re not finished yet; in 1944 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Korematsu vs. the United States, sided with the FDR Administration and ruled that Japanese Americans could be held in concentration camps even though they were totally innocent; they’re only crime being that they were of Japanese ancestry.
Given what I’ve described above, can we rely on stare decisis for our legality of Supreme Court decisions?
I know that facts are stubborn little things to the pro-abortion advocate, but let’s review a few of them here. We know scientifically that life starts at conception. This is not a controversial position, most scientists, even pro-choice ones, will grant this without debate. Philosophically, and scientifically we know that my life and your life started as an embryo. The embryonic stage is the initial stage of human life. Before I was an adult, I was an adolescent, before an adolescent, a child, before a child an infant, before an infant an unborn, before an unborn an embryo. These are all stages of human development. Where and how can one defend killing a human at a certain stage? And, if you claim you can, who determines that and on what authority and basis?
Now, if you say that a human being can be killed at an earlier stage, why can’t you say that you can kill at a later stage, say after birth? Peter Singer, a professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, says that we can kill a baby up to 30 days after birth. If you agree that this is permissible, then my other question is who should say when human life can be killed? Who gives such a person or government such power? If you say that government can determine when human life can be killed who is to say that government can decide to kill people who are too costly such as sick elderly people? Why not?