In the early days of the abortion battle, the pro-choice mob’s central argument was that the unborn are not human. Of course, for this to be true, a woman would have to have the ability to be pregnant with something that is not human. After discovering that they were unable to defend such a loopy assertion, the abortion lobby quietly dropped it.
Their follow-up was to grudgingly concede that the unborn are human – but not human beings. When this also proved to be logically unsustainable, they were once again forced to move on.
Over the next few years, their position became that the unborn might indeed be human beings but they are not persons. The problem is, the English language contains no word for a human being who is not a person. In short, this argument is not based on any generally accepted concept. The best that the abortion lobby has been able to come up with is that personhood is a legal definition and not a biological one. But even some of them are uncomfortable with the Orwellian idea that the Supreme Court can take rights away from selected categories of human beings by simply declaring them non-persons. Despite that, however, this argument is still floated around from time to time.
There are numerous other examples of how the defense of abortion has been forced to change over the years, but the reason why they have had to do this has remained constant. Simply put, at its core, the pro-choice position is not based on any fundamental or observable truth. Whether the standard is scientific, biological, legal or theological, the humanity of the unborn is simply undeniable and, given that reality, there is no way to rationalize their slaughter.
The problem our enemies are having with their “moving target” strategy, is that all of their quasi-lucid arguments have been exposed and they now have to resort to the absurd. The good news is that these moronic defenses of abortion are the most compelling evidence yet to support my long-espoused claim that the pro-life movement is winning.
The best place to see this firsthand is on the ProLifeAmerica.com Forum. One recent argument seen there, and one I have heard repeated elsewhere, is that abortion is justified because the unborn are not sentient. This basically means that it is okay to execute them because they have no awareness or perception. It is a completely undocumented argument, but no less so than any of the others they’ve used over the last 35 years. Moreover, I would argue that, on this basis, we should be allowed to hang almost every member of Congress – but that’s an issue for another time.
As it regards abortion, the reality is that the sentience (or lack thereof) of the unborn is irrelevant. Even if it were possible to scientifically prove that the unborn are not sentient, that would provide no moral justification for their execution. They are living human beings and what they are aware of, or unaware of, has no bearing on that.
I also noticed a bizarre irony in this “sentience” argument. At the same time that the Choice Mafia is saying it is okay to kill the unborn because they are not sentient, the federal courts are taking the opposite position regarding capital punishment. Their position is that they will not allow executions unless the condemned is sentient. This prevents states from executing someone who is in a coma or someone whose IQ falls below a certain point.
As someone who is opposed to both abortion and capital punishment, I am a little bewildered. Are we saying that we can legally kill innocent people because they are not sentient, but we can only kill guilty people if they are sentient? Apparently, I’m just not smart enough to understand that the “sentience” target not only has the ability to move, it also has the ability to be in two places at the same time.