When your rights are wrong - Part II

Welcome to our continuing analysis of a conversation I had with a friend at work on the ultra-flammable topic of abortion. Today's statement is a compound statement, and will be: "Men just want control. It's men who are pushing to overturn Roe V Wade. Any time that you're talking about men taking away a woman's rights, I get scared."

As I put in the last post, if you're talking about the right to choose a pantsuit (ala Hillary) over a skirt, or Harvard over UGA, that's great. But she's talking about the "right" to do something so very wrong. In all fairness, the whole "taking away my rights" is a large part of her stance, though it doesn't make it right. She is very much into the whole independent woman thing, is a divorced single mother with a good job and an education. She's worked hard, and God has blessed her. But her paranoia about repealing the 19th amendment to the Constitution and having to redo the whole women's suffrage movement doesn't justify murder. So to her "take away my rights" statement, I offer a brief scenario:

The year is 2003. Mob rule prevailed and the 2000 election went to Al Gore, who is now the President of the United States. As such, he carries on the legacy of his predecessor, Mr. Clinton, and vetoes the Partial Birth Abortion ban (which makes it illegal for abortion providers to deliver the baby's head or deliver all but the head and then kill it) when it gets sent to him from Congress. He also signs a bill into law a few months later, making it legal for the abortion provider to kill the baby within the first five minutes after delivery. Despite the public outcry, he makes the argument that "It's the same thing, right? The baby is alive in both cases, just in one the torso or the face is still inside the birth canal." And the sad thing is, he's right. I mean, if the face is still inside, it's 2 inches away from being on the outside; if the torso is still inside, it's 12 inches away from being on the outside. So before the "5 minute rule" law was passed, the baby was basically between 2 and 12 inches away from being "illegal" to kill. 2 to 12 inches away from legal protection of the law and 2 to 12 inches away from being considered as something that has value.

In 2004, every Senate/House member who voted for the bill is replaced (save those elected representatives from the states of California and New York) . New legislation is passed stating that it is now illegal to kill a baby outside the womb, even within the first 5 minutes after birth. As expected, NOW and Planned Parenthood are railing against the great injustice, which is "just the first step to repealing all of a women's 'rights.'" This begs the question, "Have a woman's 'rights' been violated by telling her she can't murder another living human being?" Of course not. It may inconvenience her and make her unable to do what she wants to. So what's the difference between that situation and the current one we have in 2008? Simply put - location. Inside the womb, legal to kill. Outside, illegal. Whatever happened to humans being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..."(see the Declaration of Independence)?

Another thing worth a second look would be the word that I keep putting in quotes – the word "right." In the sense of "human rights," it means an entitlement, be it legal or moral. How can a human have a moral right to take the life of another innocent human being (key word here is "innocent")? They can't. The right all humans have is the one first mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the inalienable right to Life. If anyone's rights are taken away, it is the right to life of the unborn.

One final mention - this post (and the following posts on the subject) are discussing abortion as a topic, and not condemning women who have had abortions. You can't go back and undo something like that, and I'm sure the scars remain, even if they're not visible from the surface. Jesus Christ offers forgiveness for anything you've ever done, no matter how wrong it may be, and He offers it to everyone. Women who have had abortions need prayer and love, the same as woman who are thinking about having one.

This was part two in a series of posts dissecting points from a conversation between a coworker and myself on the topic of abortion. Thanks for reading.

I did it - Part I

Well, I did it. I coerced my friend/debate partner at work to verbalize a logical contradiction. I'd like to think that means that I win, since by contradicting yourself in the same sentence you are deemed "babbling" (eg "I hate potato chips, but I love potatoes that are sliced really thinly and then fried, flavored, bagged and sold in grocery stores."). The topic was abortion, and she was using many of the "old standards," which we'll look at one by one in a series of posts over the next few weeks. Today's argument will be the ever-popular, "I'm not for abortion, but I'm for the right of a woman to choose what she wants to do with her own body."


What a grand idea - a woman being able to do as she pleases with her own body (and, by default, life)? Well, that's fine, if you're evaluating that statement verbatim. I fully believe that a woman should have the right to be in control of her own life and even her body, and make choices for herself as she sees fit, right? Choose a Volvo over a Hyundai (although I really like the Sonatas)? Absolutely. Pursue a career as a mortgage broker vs. a district manager for a retail outlet? Definitely. Eat a whole container of lard over crackers and ruin her heart/arteries? If she wants to. Smoke pot until her brain doesn't function properly anymore? I guess so (although there are consequences for actions, and there should be no complaining when they set in). But when you're talking about abortion, that sentence can no longer read as it was dictated, because you're actually supporting the right of a woman to choose what she wants to do with her own body, AS WELL AS the body growing inside of hers (which could be a woman's, by the way). So it should be reworded to say "I'm not for abortion, but I'm for the right of a woman to choose what she wants to do with her own body and life, as well as her unborn baby's body and life."


Now, let's look at her statement for just a moment. "I'm not for abortion..." Why would she say that, given her position on the argument? She's pro-abortion, or "pro-choice" (of course, the "choice" being given is the choice to kill your child if you want to, so that should be worded "pro-death". I'd stick with the "pro-abortion" if I were her. I digress...). Why would she start with "I'm not for abortion...?" The answer to that would be because she thinks (knows) that it is wrong, morally reprehensible, selfish, and murder to condone a person killing their own child. However, she is conveniently able to separate the actual event from the idea by thinking of it as "terminating the pregnancy." That sounds much nicer and cleaner than vaccuuming the baby apart or dissolving it in a saline solution (much like pouring salt on a slug), or birthing the baby in breech position all the way to the base of the head, cutting open the back of the skull, and then sucking the brains out with a vaccuum. WAY better to just "terminate the pregnancy."

Anyways, on the way out the door, she went back to this sentence and said, "I'm just for the woman's right to choose." To which I replied, "Right to choose what?" "An abortion." "Which does what to a baby? Helps it grow? Or ends its life - kills it?" And she said, "Kills it." "So while you're not for killing babies, you are for the woman's right to choose to kill her baby." And she said Yes. My goodness...game over.

One final mention - this post (and the following posts on the subject) are discussing abortion as a topic, and not condemning women who have had abortions. You can't go back and undo something like that, and I'm sure the scars remain, even if they're not visible from the surface. Jesus Christ offers forgiveness for anything you've ever done, no matter how wrong it may be, and He offers it to everyone. Women who have had abortions need prayer and love, the same as woman who are thinking about having one.

In the following posts, I'm going to dissect the other points from our conversation and offer my take on them. Thanks for reading.