The Argument Itself is Not Viable

Some people try to finesse the abortion issue by saying that they would support a ban after the child is viable but allow abortion before that point.  There are basically five reasons why this is an indefensible position. 

 

First, defending pre-viability abortion on the basis that the child cannot survive if removed from the womb is so illogical it’s laughable.  It’s like a man saying, “Since my wife can’t survive if I shoot her in the head, that means it’s okay for me to shoot her in the head.”  Or better yet, it would be like a doctor saying, “This patient will fully recover if we leave his feeding tube in place, but he will die if we remove it.  Therefore, it’s okay to remove his feeding tube.”  In reality, if an unborn baby has not reached the point of viability, that is an argument against abortion not in support of it.

 

Second, viability is a function of medical technology and is unrelated to the question of whether the unborn are living human beings or not. This is proven by the fact that premature babies are now routinely surviving at gestational ages that would have been unthinkable a hundred years ago. 

 

Third, if viability is the yardstick, a legitimate argument could be made that we now know that the unborn are viable from the moment of conception.  After all, if that were not true, in-vitro fertilization would not be possible since the new human life created in this process would die immediately.  The fact is, it is only placed in the mom’s womb because medical technology is not yet able to provide an alternative environment in which it can survive.       

 

Fourth, if the argument is that the unborn are not viable because they are dependent on others to survive, then a one-week-old baby is no more viable than an unborn baby.  Neither can survive alone.  That could also be said about people who are severely handicapped or suffering from some debilitating illness, as well as people who are senile, comatose, unconscious, or under general anesthesia.  If the ability to survive without the aid of others is what creates the right to life, these people have no more right to life than the unborn.

 

The fifth reason viability cannot be used is the fact that the abortionist is always the one who gets to determine whether his intended victim is viable or not.  And if there was ever a textbook example of letting the fox guard the henhouse, this is it.  

And On They Drone

With the political season in full swing, the Choice Mafia is once again clamoring that the issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong but, “who decides – the woman or the state?” 

 

Have you ever noticed that anytime someone says right and wrong don’t matter, it always turns out that they want to do something that even they know is wrong?

 

In any event, my question is this: if these people think that legalized abortion is such a positive thing, why won’t they defend it on its own merits?  Why do they feel compelled to claim that its merits – or lack thereof – are irrelevant?

 

The answer is that abortion has no merits.  In fact, there is nothing appealing about it.  A mom climbs on a table and puts her feet in the stirrups.  Then, a medical-community washout with the morals of a sewer rat, roots around inside her body with sharp instruments and tears her child limb from limb.  If all goes well, the woman won’t end up in the emergency room or in an early grave.

 

Of course, when the dust has settled, whatever drove her to submit to this abortion in the first place is still a reality.  She is just as poor, or uneducated, or ill-housed, or abused as she was before.  The only significant difference in her life is that she is now the mother of a dead baby instead of a live one.  Call me stupid, but I find it hard to imagine that she is better off for that experience.

 

Obviously, it’s tough to make this scenario seem anything but ugly, which is precisely why our enemies try every trick in the book to avoid talking about it.  One thing is for sure.  If every voter spent just one day inside a typical abortion clinic, there would be no debate.  These death camps would be shut down instantly and the people who work in them dragged off in handcuffs and leg irons.

 

While we’re talking about this “right and wrong don’t matter” rhetoric, let’s also not forget that America has heard it before.  During the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1857, Douglas said that, while he was personally opposed to slavery, he would not legislate against it because it was up to the people to vote it up or down.  Lincoln countered with: “He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down.  When Judge Douglas says that whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong.”

 

What Lincoln was saying is that the government is not empowered to protect one individual’s right to inflict wrong on another, but to protect those who would be victimized from those who would victimize. 

 

So let’s cut to the chase here.  The reality is, the pro-choice mob has to say that the issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong because they know that neither they, nor anyone else, can defend the actual act of abortion.  They also understand that their very survival depends on them being able to keep the public from looking at the central question: is the unborn child a living human being?  If the answer to that is yes – and even the most outspoken defenders of legal abortion know that it is – then there is no debate about “who decides.”   Civilized societies simply don’t leave the decision about whether one human being can kill another one up to the one who wants to do the killing.

So does it matter whether abortion is right or wrong?  The better question is: what else could matter?  And if right and wrong do not matter in this case, why would they ever matter?


Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics