Choice
A line written in high school went something like this: “A right is only a right when it hinders no other right, then it purges and is no longer a right.” A paraphrase could be: Someone’s right is only just when it does not violate any other right. Does that ring true? A choice is by loose definition a declaration of not doing other things. When a choice is made to sleep, it is in reverse a choice not to do anything else. With few exceptions such as multi-tasking, there is no way around this fact. A choice to do somethings is also a choice not to do other things.
Now let me tell you the background to that line written in high school. It was written in response to the subject of abortion. Pro-choice Vs. pro-life. Does this change the meaning of the written line? Is it the right of the unborn to live, or is it the right of the mother to live unfettered by an unwanted child? One choice will exclude the other. As old man Emerson once said, “God gives each of us a choice between truth and repose, take what you wish, you can never have both.”
By reason of the Supreme Court of this land, the debate over the morality of abortion is not a matter of whether or not the fetus is human. That is undeniable. (The very word “fetus” is Latin for “baby”.) The battle in the Supreme Court is whether or not the fetus is a person, and as such a person whose rights are protected under the law. If it is not a person, what would it be? Property. Part of the mother, a drain on her system, an unwanted mistake.
Does this argument sound familiar? It should be. It is reminiscent to America’s tragic civil war. The argument was: slaves are not people protected under the constitution, they are the property of the land owners. People have argued that there are great differences between the slavery in our history books and the abortion problem we have today. And they are right. There is a huge difference. These fetus’ (unborn babies) have no voice.
Let me make myself clear. I am not demeaning the choice or the rights of the mother, I am pointing out that the unborn child’s rights should not be ignored to please the conscience of the mother’s right. Here is the bottom line. Morally, the concept is called plausible inevitability. What is the possibility that this fetus, left unhindered would become anything other than a human baby of which anyone in their right minds would agree that the law protects from murder. Murder is murder, simply because the fetus is smaller, less developed and dependent does not change that. Even a toddler is smaller, less developed and more dependent than a teenager or an adult.
Why do most people protect the rights of the mother to have an abortion over the rights of the unborn? From what I have found, it is not because they don’t believe the fetus is human, nor because they see it as morally neutral. There are two main reasons I have found most people may defend pro-choice.
1) What if she was raped? Many fear the child, if born, would only be a constant reminder of the heinous act.
2) What if her life was endangered? Can we really demand her to give up her life without her consent?
Besides the adoption option, there are two answers for these two concerns. There have been many cases in which a raped victim has gone ahead with the pregnancy and the exact opposite has happened. Instead of the child being a curse upon the mother, he/she becomes a blessing. Something good that came from something so terrible. And while there are some cases in which the choice is to either save the unborn baby or to save the mother, the vast majority of the cases in which the mother’s health is in danger, the baby will die no matter what you do. But bottom line, even if we make room for these two exceptions, which could easily be done, and even to add a third exception - pregnant teens under 15; these three exceptions would account for less than 5% of all abortions in the United States. Would it not be wise in that case to disband that which is morally wrong and then take care for the exceptions?
Under our law, if a man kills a woman who is pregnant, he can be charged with double murder. For murdering the woman, and murdering the unborn baby in her womb. Why have we sat in silence in the midst of this blatant inconsistency?
A fetus is not just a lump of tissue. It begins to have an active heart beat around 28 days (3 weeks), and active brain waves by the 6th week. To put that into perspective, Early First Trimester would be considered from 4 to 7 weeks. That is after the heart has already begun beating. Early First Trimester abortions (which consists of taking a pill up to the 5th week and afterwards either dismemberment or forced separation) only accounts for 6% of all known abortions. That makes 94% of all known abortions the action of killing something that thinks upon its own. All known abortions stop a breathing thing, killing it. Of course, we know what this ‘thing’ is. It is a fetus. A baby.
Now may I ask you again? Does it ring true? “A right is only a right when it hinders no other right, then it purges and is no longer a right!”
Jared Williams
Now let me tell you the background to that line written in high school. It was written in response to the subject of abortion. Pro-choice Vs. pro-life. Does this change the meaning of the written line? Is it the right of the unborn to live, or is it the right of the mother to live unfettered by an unwanted child? One choice will exclude the other. As old man Emerson once said, “God gives each of us a choice between truth and repose, take what you wish, you can never have both.”
By reason of the Supreme Court of this land, the debate over the morality of abortion is not a matter of whether or not the fetus is human. That is undeniable. (The very word “fetus” is Latin for “baby”.) The battle in the Supreme Court is whether or not the fetus is a person, and as such a person whose rights are protected under the law. If it is not a person, what would it be? Property. Part of the mother, a drain on her system, an unwanted mistake.
Does this argument sound familiar? It should be. It is reminiscent to America’s tragic civil war. The argument was: slaves are not people protected under the constitution, they are the property of the land owners. People have argued that there are great differences between the slavery in our history books and the abortion problem we have today. And they are right. There is a huge difference. These fetus’ (unborn babies) have no voice.
Let me make myself clear. I am not demeaning the choice or the rights of the mother, I am pointing out that the unborn child’s rights should not be ignored to please the conscience of the mother’s right. Here is the bottom line. Morally, the concept is called plausible inevitability. What is the possibility that this fetus, left unhindered would become anything other than a human baby of which anyone in their right minds would agree that the law protects from murder. Murder is murder, simply because the fetus is smaller, less developed and dependent does not change that. Even a toddler is smaller, less developed and more dependent than a teenager or an adult.
Why do most people protect the rights of the mother to have an abortion over the rights of the unborn? From what I have found, it is not because they don’t believe the fetus is human, nor because they see it as morally neutral. There are two main reasons I have found most people may defend pro-choice.
1) What if she was raped? Many fear the child, if born, would only be a constant reminder of the heinous act.
2) What if her life was endangered? Can we really demand her to give up her life without her consent?
Besides the adoption option, there are two answers for these two concerns. There have been many cases in which a raped victim has gone ahead with the pregnancy and the exact opposite has happened. Instead of the child being a curse upon the mother, he/she becomes a blessing. Something good that came from something so terrible. And while there are some cases in which the choice is to either save the unborn baby or to save the mother, the vast majority of the cases in which the mother’s health is in danger, the baby will die no matter what you do. But bottom line, even if we make room for these two exceptions, which could easily be done, and even to add a third exception - pregnant teens under 15; these three exceptions would account for less than 5% of all abortions in the United States. Would it not be wise in that case to disband that which is morally wrong and then take care for the exceptions?
Under our law, if a man kills a woman who is pregnant, he can be charged with double murder. For murdering the woman, and murdering the unborn baby in her womb. Why have we sat in silence in the midst of this blatant inconsistency?
A fetus is not just a lump of tissue. It begins to have an active heart beat around 28 days (3 weeks), and active brain waves by the 6th week. To put that into perspective, Early First Trimester would be considered from 4 to 7 weeks. That is after the heart has already begun beating. Early First Trimester abortions (which consists of taking a pill up to the 5th week and afterwards either dismemberment or forced separation) only accounts for 6% of all known abortions. That makes 94% of all known abortions the action of killing something that thinks upon its own. All known abortions stop a breathing thing, killing it. Of course, we know what this ‘thing’ is. It is a fetus. A baby.
Now may I ask you again? Does it ring true? “A right is only a right when it hinders no other right, then it purges and is no longer a right!”
Jared Williams
