Tuesday, March 08, 2011

Pro-baby-murder

My friend David B dropped by partly to take issue with my using the term "pro-baby-murder" when describing those who think it is permissible and should be legal to poison, dismember, decapitate, or otherwise violently end the life of babies in the womb.

...the "pro-baby-murder" label was inaccurate (though provocative, sure)...
Let me explain here why I choose to use that term.

1) David B rightly points out that it is a provocative term.  So much of the modern discourse on the issue of abortion engages in imprecise definitions and nice euphemisms for what is really going on.
This is what is really going on.
It's not "evacuation".  The baby is not a "clump of cells".  "Product of conception" doesn't describe the unborn child any more than "product of conception" describes you and me.  I don't think anyone in the pro-baby-murder crowd would let me off the hook for aborting one of them.  Nope, not even if I lawyered up and claimed that I was merely eliminating an unwanted product of conception, a clump of cells. I mean, it's not as if any of our pro-baby-murder friends have completed their human development either.

2) Murder has a very precise definition.  It is the unjustified taking of human life.  Abortion is certainly unjustified, both on biblical and American legal terms.
Biblically speaking, it is justifiable (indeed, one might argue it's even recommended, if not obligatory) to put capital criminals to death.  Babies are, however, not capital criminals.
The American Declaration of Independence informs us that all of us are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The 5th Amendment to the Constitution says:  "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
In abortion, babies are deprived of all three, and without due process of law.  Some pro-baby-murder advocates (some of the really extreme ones) argue that the baby is a "parasite" on the mother, even waging war on her, which terminology and emotion leave me speechless in amazement.  Obviously such argumentation lacks any value except in its shock value, appealing to the basest of emotion. Babies have committed no crime against the mother, and as such would have to be found not guilty by a jury of their peers, which would be required to legally justify putting them to death.
And even if they were found guilty of a capital crime, they would need to be put to death by the means mandated by the state.  In Oklahoma, it's lethal injection.
Not that the law is consistent in its application, but I'm pointing out that the current state of abortion law is hopelessly confused.  By any measure, abortion is murder.

3) How often do pro-baby-murder advocates support and desire open dialogue about the facts of abortion?  How often do they invite (or even tolerate) open discussion of the issues in the public marketplace of ideas?  Why do they oppose laws that mandate waiting periods before abortions, ultrasounds before abortions, parental permission for minors, etc?  What precisely are they afraid of?
Well, obviously they are afraid of the truth, but that's the problem.  Just look at the guy in the last post - he's not in favor of more education on the issues.  He's in favor of less; he wants his side to be the only side taught and talked about.  We got a letter from another person in his little group, informing us that their minds are closed with respect to the issue of abortion.  Oh, but they're pro-education, and pro-choice?
Clearly not - they want carte blanche to do as many abortions as they bloody well please.  That's not pro-choice at all.

Yes, I sometimes use hyperbole solely for effect.  This is not one of those times.

4 comments:

The Chemist said...

Well said, and I like the new layout.

David B said...

Firstly, ditto the like for the new layout (Sheesh, FB has slaughtered our use of language).

Secondly, I am well aware of the brutality of what's going on; it's my reason for attending the March for Life and referring people to http://www.abortionno.org/. So I'm no stranger to the horrific slaughter that is abortion.

My initial comment had to do with the fact that folks are not, strictly speaking, advocating for "abortion, abortion, abortion," simply for the sake of having an abortion. What they are adamant about is maintaining the possibility of having a choice to have an abortion, usually at any, but sometimes simply at most, stages of pregnancy.

The difficulty is that pro-possibility-of-baby-murder is a bit unwieldy; I can't think of a term that would both include the idea of choice AND would state the horrific option that they want to be able to choose.

So I'm being picky, I guess.

Rhology said...

Thx 4 the like LOL!

;-)

I just quibble with the "choice" thing - they don't really want women to make choices. They want them to do what they want - abort. If they truly wanted choice, they'd want more education, which they clearly don't want.

Paul C said...

If there was a house in your town where one-year-old children were being murdered every day, what would you do about it?