Generally, those who defend legalized abortion couch their rhetoric in terms of rights. Occasionally, however, one will actually try to argue that butchering our offspring can be defended on moral terms. A few years back, one even wrote that having an abortion should be looked upon as a sacrament that makes the unborn victim holy. Her “reasoning” was that the baby becomes more like Jesus since both shed their blood to make other people’s lives better.
Today, the pro-choice crowd is correctly recognizing that the American people are increasingly uncomfortable about abortion. If for no other reason, modern ultrasound images of the unborn prove that the pro-life position on fetal humanity is not an unfounded theory but observable fact.
So now comes an article by Sarah Zaman. In a bid to appear less radical than her neo-feminist foremothers, she says that the pro-choice position should evolve from one that sees the unborn as “ordinary tissue to be casually thrown aside” into one which “at least recognizes that abortions end the potential for human life.”
With that, Zaman establishes a new standard for irrational pro-choice rhetoric. Only through mind-numbing stupidity could someone suggest that when male and female human beings reproduce they produce something that is only potential human life. In the first place, if the word “potential” is suggesting that the unborn is only potentially alive, that is demonstrably untrue. Even in the earliest stages of pregnancy, sonograms show movements and heartbeats that do not belong to the woman. Clearly, whatever else the fetus is, no one can logically deny that it is, at least, alive.
Maybe her use of “potential” is referring to the word “human.” However, for that to be accurate, the fetus would have to have the “potential” of becoming either a human being or some other life form—perhaps a parrot or a spider. Her problem is that there is no record of a human female ever having given birth to anything other than another human being. So while it may be reasonable to say that a fetus is a potential major league baseball star or a potential schoolteacher, it is laughable to say that it is a potential human being. Biologically, the fetus is a living human being because that is the only thing it can be.
Zaman went on to regurgitate the Clintonian maxim that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” But if legalized abortion is such an empowering thing for women, and it is not the killing of a child, why would anyone want it to be rare? In fact, if it is such a positive thing for women, we should be clamoring for more abortions not fewer. And if it is the “fundamental constitutional right” that the abortion lobby claims, why shouldn’t it be celebrated? After all, we don’t hear anyone saying that free speech or freedom of religion should be rare. Why apply this illogical standard to abortion?
There are several other incoherent arguments in Zaman’s article, but the bottom line is that her version of “pro-choice” is even more intellectually dishonest than the one she wants to replace. The pro-choice view has always been that the unborn have no value and, therefore, it’s acceptable to treat them as if they have no value. So while their actions are indeed evil, they are at least consistent with their beliefs.
On the other hand, Zaman says the unborn do have value while at the same time contending that the law should continue to allow them to be slaughtered by the millions. Either she is actually more evil than her older colleagues (if such a thing is possible), or she has not yet discovered something they figured out long ago: the Abortion Holocaust cannot be defended using morality or reason and those who try to do so appear as fools.