Printer friendly version

May 23, 2006

The Facts of Life

An excellent summary by Bernard Lefoley in the Providence Journal:

That a human embryo is a human being is a self-evident and scientific fact. Human beings procreate human beings. A human embryo has the same human DNA for the rest of his or her life on the face of this earth. The only thing the human embryo needs that it does not contain within itself is nutrition and sustenance. The reason the human embryo implants itself in the wall of the uterus is to get those.

The question of whether an embryo or fetus is a "person" who comes under the protection of the law is a legal and constitutional issue. Since the human embryo is a human being, it should automatically be a person protected under the Rhode Island and U.S. constitutions. Any legal system that does not endow all human beings with the inalienable right to life and does not protect that right is evil.

I continue to believe that the greatest impediment to protection of the unborn is the subconscious realization of too many in our society that they have either engaged in or facilitated evil. The heat with which people respond to intellectual arguments against abortion always make me wonder whose culpability they are trying to whitewash.

Posted by Justin Katz at May 23, 2006 5:56 AM
Abortion
Comments

I continue to believe that the greatest impediment to protection of the unborn is the subconscious realization of too many in our society that they have either engaged in or facilitated evil.

That is absolutely correct. Who wants to admit that they've been supporting a grave moral evil all their life? Look how long it took the South to fully admit that slavery was evil - it basically required 2 or 3 generations to die off first.

This is also precisely why no abortion supporters (sorry, "people of the pro-choice persuasion") have publicly reviewed Ramesh Ponnuru's Party of Death. It's uncomfortable to be faced with such moral truths in such a direct and forcefully argued form. There are no reasonable arguments to those such as Mr. Lefoley's or Ponnuru's - hence the dismissal of the messenger (or, in the case of PoD, the title & dust jacket), rather than the engagement of the arguments. This is illustrated rather comically in the comments section over at The American Scene in the two posts by Ross Douthat.

Posted by: Mike S. at May 24, 2006 12:02 PM

Your right - it would be akin admitting to involvement or support of the holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis. Which is another reason they hate being analogized to the holocaust or slavery, despite the dead-on accuracy of both analogies (reducing human beings to something less than persons worthy of respect and protection under the law).

Posted by: c matt at May 26, 2006 4:13 PM