Sunday, November 16, 2008
BABY NOT YET
BABY NOT YET
When I lived in the Kansas City area, I had a friend from work with whom I car-pooled. He was originally from New Orleans. I, as a native Chicagoan, had a great time every day comparing language differences and local customs from our respective hometowns. One thing that struck me was his term for eggs. Specifically, he called them ‘chicken not yet’.
Perhaps that is the term that the pro-abortion advocates should use with respect to unborn babies. Fetus can be troublesome, because too many people equate fetus with an unborn baby. Embryo is not quite right either, as many of the aborted have fully developed arms and legs, fingers and toes, eyes and noses. Too recognizable to be called an embryo, as they appear human. Extraneous uterine material has never caught on. That term must be too scientific for mere plebeians. So perhaps, in the continuing quest to come up with a terminology that will dehumanize the unborn, and make the abortion process more acceptable to us, the pro-abortion activists can use the term ‘Baby Not Yet’. The ‘baby’ part would be their version of warm and fuzzy, but the ‘not yet’ part would place the unborn in an egg category. Abortion would then become the elimination of a woman’s ova, albeit a rather large one.
Semantics aside, I have had some thoughts on the abortion issue that I have tried several times to articulate, without much success. I think my emotions get in the way, and cause me to lose my rationale. I am, if nothing else, persistent; so I thought I would try again to put my thoughts to paper. If I use a different approach, with a slightly different terminology, perhaps I can get through this without succumbing to vitriol.
We are a nation with a criminal justice system based on a simple premise. Every person accused of a crime, no matter how horrendous, and regardless of the amount of evidence accumulated, is innocent until proven guilty. The entire process is designed to afford the maximum protection to the accused, based on this presumption of innocence. The indictment process, pre-trial hearings, right to remain silent, right to an attorney, and rules of evidence are all designed to place unprecedented restrictions on the prosecution, while providing many opportunities for the accused to get off if any of the rules are violated. No other country on earth has as many protections in place for those accused of breaking its laws. As a strict constitutionalist, I do not quibble with any aspect of this process. I am ferocious in my desire to protect we the citizens from any unfair advantage by the government.
My question is simply why we, as a nation, do not apply the same standard to the unborn? The rules applied to abortion seem absolutely arbitrary, with no basis in law or science. They are based on opinion rather than fact, and supposition, rather than evidence. Indeed, appearance rather than proof.
If this were a just nation in all respects, rather than selectively, abortion would have to meet the same strict criteria as our criminal justice system. Just take a few of the pro-abortion positions, and apply the same type of criminal provisions regarding the rules of evidence process, and you will get my drift.
1) A fetus can be aborted if not viable outside of the womb. Actually, a 1-year-old child is not viable outside of the care of an adult. They cannot obtain food or shelter, protect themselves from the elements or predators, or avoid hazards to themselves, such as fire and flood.
2) A fetus does not have awareness, nor can it feel pain. There is no scientific proof for this statement. In fact, the reverse is true. There are several studies now available, which show that a fetus can be startled by loud noises, awakened from sleep by the mothers cough, and calmed by certain music and voices. Further studies, although recent, have shown that pain receptors develop very early during pregnancy. A simple blood test performed on a fetus draws a reaction. Severing limbs, crushing skulls, vacuuming out internal organs, all show evidence of causing extreme pain to the unborn.
3) A woman has a constitutional right to abort a baby, as it is her body, and the right to choose is constitutionally protected. Please show me what article or amendment specifies this right. I do recall an equal protection clause, as well as some troublesome wording involving equal status. Apparently, some are more equal than others.
4) A fetus is not a human until born. Again, should not the same standards used in criminal proceedings be used to determine this most basic issue? If a criminal is innocent until proven guilty, should we not also say an unborn baby is a human until proven otherwise?
I could go on, but an improvable statement by the pro-abortion lobby would counter any argument I might cite in defense of the unborn. What I will never understand is why the Liberal Left, who claim to be the protectors of individual rights against the forces of the Evil Right, refuses to defend the right of a baby to live, while fighting to insure the rights of murderers to all the protection society can provide. Science continues to learn more and more about when life begins, and as each new fact comes to light, it reinforces the arguments against abortion on demand.
An accused murderer must go through a prolonged legal process, involving dozens of people. Judges, attorneys, prosecutors, juries, Appeals Courts, judicial reviews, and clemency pleas are all part of the process. If execution is involved, a decade or more may be required before the sentence is carried out. In abortion, one woman can make a snap decision that she does not want the inconvenience of motherhood, and within a day, complete the abortion process. No appeal, no review, and no one to defend the life within her.
We live in a country where we have the right to make choices every day. But with choice comes responsibility for our actions and consequences to those actions. A criminal makes a choice to commit a crime, and must accept the consequences when caught and prosecuted. A woman makes a choice to have intercourse, with pregnancy one of the consequences of the action. Yet it is the baby who must accept the consequences should she choose to have abortion. Just as victims do not choose to have a crime committed against them, and yet they suffer the consequences; so to a baby does not choose be conceived, not does this unborn person choose to be aborted.
The bottom line is that in America, you are better protected if accused of murder, than if you are a baby in the womb.
When I lived in the Kansas City area, I had a friend from work with whom I car-pooled. He was originally from New Orleans. I, as a native Chicagoan, had a great time every day comparing language differences and local customs from our respective hometowns. One thing that struck me was his term for eggs. Specifically, he called them ‘chicken not yet’.
Perhaps that is the term that the pro-abortion advocates should use with respect to unborn babies. Fetus can be troublesome, because too many people equate fetus with an unborn baby. Embryo is not quite right either, as many of the aborted have fully developed arms and legs, fingers and toes, eyes and noses. Too recognizable to be called an embryo, as they appear human. Extraneous uterine material has never caught on. That term must be too scientific for mere plebeians. So perhaps, in the continuing quest to come up with a terminology that will dehumanize the unborn, and make the abortion process more acceptable to us, the pro-abortion activists can use the term ‘Baby Not Yet’. The ‘baby’ part would be their version of warm and fuzzy, but the ‘not yet’ part would place the unborn in an egg category. Abortion would then become the elimination of a woman’s ova, albeit a rather large one.
Semantics aside, I have had some thoughts on the abortion issue that I have tried several times to articulate, without much success. I think my emotions get in the way, and cause me to lose my rationale. I am, if nothing else, persistent; so I thought I would try again to put my thoughts to paper. If I use a different approach, with a slightly different terminology, perhaps I can get through this without succumbing to vitriol.
We are a nation with a criminal justice system based on a simple premise. Every person accused of a crime, no matter how horrendous, and regardless of the amount of evidence accumulated, is innocent until proven guilty. The entire process is designed to afford the maximum protection to the accused, based on this presumption of innocence. The indictment process, pre-trial hearings, right to remain silent, right to an attorney, and rules of evidence are all designed to place unprecedented restrictions on the prosecution, while providing many opportunities for the accused to get off if any of the rules are violated. No other country on earth has as many protections in place for those accused of breaking its laws. As a strict constitutionalist, I do not quibble with any aspect of this process. I am ferocious in my desire to protect we the citizens from any unfair advantage by the government.
My question is simply why we, as a nation, do not apply the same standard to the unborn? The rules applied to abortion seem absolutely arbitrary, with no basis in law or science. They are based on opinion rather than fact, and supposition, rather than evidence. Indeed, appearance rather than proof.
If this were a just nation in all respects, rather than selectively, abortion would have to meet the same strict criteria as our criminal justice system. Just take a few of the pro-abortion positions, and apply the same type of criminal provisions regarding the rules of evidence process, and you will get my drift.
1) A fetus can be aborted if not viable outside of the womb. Actually, a 1-year-old child is not viable outside of the care of an adult. They cannot obtain food or shelter, protect themselves from the elements or predators, or avoid hazards to themselves, such as fire and flood.
2) A fetus does not have awareness, nor can it feel pain. There is no scientific proof for this statement. In fact, the reverse is true. There are several studies now available, which show that a fetus can be startled by loud noises, awakened from sleep by the mothers cough, and calmed by certain music and voices. Further studies, although recent, have shown that pain receptors develop very early during pregnancy. A simple blood test performed on a fetus draws a reaction. Severing limbs, crushing skulls, vacuuming out internal organs, all show evidence of causing extreme pain to the unborn.
3) A woman has a constitutional right to abort a baby, as it is her body, and the right to choose is constitutionally protected. Please show me what article or amendment specifies this right. I do recall an equal protection clause, as well as some troublesome wording involving equal status. Apparently, some are more equal than others.
4) A fetus is not a human until born. Again, should not the same standards used in criminal proceedings be used to determine this most basic issue? If a criminal is innocent until proven guilty, should we not also say an unborn baby is a human until proven otherwise?
I could go on, but an improvable statement by the pro-abortion lobby would counter any argument I might cite in defense of the unborn. What I will never understand is why the Liberal Left, who claim to be the protectors of individual rights against the forces of the Evil Right, refuses to defend the right of a baby to live, while fighting to insure the rights of murderers to all the protection society can provide. Science continues to learn more and more about when life begins, and as each new fact comes to light, it reinforces the arguments against abortion on demand.
An accused murderer must go through a prolonged legal process, involving dozens of people. Judges, attorneys, prosecutors, juries, Appeals Courts, judicial reviews, and clemency pleas are all part of the process. If execution is involved, a decade or more may be required before the sentence is carried out. In abortion, one woman can make a snap decision that she does not want the inconvenience of motherhood, and within a day, complete the abortion process. No appeal, no review, and no one to defend the life within her.
We live in a country where we have the right to make choices every day. But with choice comes responsibility for our actions and consequences to those actions. A criminal makes a choice to commit a crime, and must accept the consequences when caught and prosecuted. A woman makes a choice to have intercourse, with pregnancy one of the consequences of the action. Yet it is the baby who must accept the consequences should she choose to have abortion. Just as victims do not choose to have a crime committed against them, and yet they suffer the consequences; so to a baby does not choose be conceived, not does this unborn person choose to be aborted.
The bottom line is that in America, you are better protected if accused of murder, than if you are a baby in the womb.
Comments:
Post a Comment
