In the previous post I linked to a story about a woman forgoing treatment so that she could carry her baby to near-term and give birth. It is a beautiful story of sacrifice and resolve for something that she believed strongly in and a love that is almost unimaginable. I ran across the story after a few days of pondering the idea that "life trumps choice."
I was in my car and heard a comment about the arrogance of the pro-lifers who would take away the choice of a woman. The thought of pro-life being a put down is actually amusing to me, because that would mean the opposite end of the spectrum is "anti-life." This actually goes to the core of the debate, however, because the "choice" crowd says they are looking out for the rights of the living woman, and her privacy right cannot be infringed upon.
Interesting.
Not willing to make this post too long, and thereby causing the three people who would normally skim the site to bypass it altogether, I simply say, "Life trumps Choice"... every time.
It is my life, and my privacy in my car gives me a choice to drive 109 miles an hour through a playground. However, the life that is in the playground (parents, children and even dogs) will cause the authorities to not allow me drive dangerously. Their life trumps my choice.
I can own a gun, and love to fire it. If you are standing in front of my target and I choose to fire, then you will die. I will then be punished for my choice to fire. Your life trumps my choice.
The argument might then be made (and it is really where the true issue lies) that the unborn is not life but part of the woman's body. I don't think that anyone has ever stooped to name the fetus "property", but privacy issues are always brought up. Forget the fact that when "private" is mentioned in the Constitution it actually refers to property and the illegal taking of. The abortion debate really, then, centers on whether the unborn is a life in and of itself or the property of the woman.
If it can be proven with 100% accuracy (note the 100%) that the unborn is not a life on it's own, the it is truly a part of the woman and nothing can be said. However, this cannot be proven. In fact, the overwhelming medical (scientific) evidence puts the unborn at the status of a separate life. (Do your own actual research before trying to blast this one). With this being said, even if there was only a 1% chance that the unborn was "life", then we must always err on the side of life.
Then remember... Life trumps Choice. Your choice and mine.
Every time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Sorry, I couldn't help it--I immediately imagined the title of your post (with a slight puncutation adjustment) as a brand new reality TV spin-off called "Life: Trump's Choice." I don't know what it would be about, but I feel like the Donald would go for it...
More to the point, I wonder if the debate lies less along the lines of property than those of humanity. Some might say that while the fetus is clearly much more than a possession, insomuch as it's alive it's closer to a dog or cat than a person. It has life, but surely (the argument goes) it's not as valuable as a human life.
Life doesn't necessarily confer personhood, nor does it carry a full guarantee of Constitutional rights.
Personally, I'm with you, but eventually our side has got to find a way, whether rhetorically or scientifically, around (beyond?) the valid arguments against us.
I have to admit, the Donald Trump reference immediately sprang to my mind as well.
In the words of Robin Williams in the movie Awakenings, "I'm sorry. If you were correct I would agree with you." Actually, humanity IS the issue. I have never heard of anyone compare a fetus to a dog or aoemba or whatever. In fact, the status of the unborn is never (a dangerous word, I know) mentioned. In the argument of the "choice" crowd, it is always about the woman getting to have an abortion. In fact, if the choice is made not to, at times there is anger over the non-abortion. Not really a strong argument for "choice" if you ask me.
It is kind of like letting you choose to have your way as long as you choose my way. But anyhow...
The premise must be correct for any solution to be viable. Is the unborn life? Again, I don't hear the argument about it being life but a different form of life. That is never the argument. So, scientifically, what is the unborn?
This is where we err on the side of life. In this country, the courts err on the side of the accused (Innocent until proven...). If it is life, is it an evolving form of human? Again, the overwhelming scientific evidence is that the unborn is human. The courts have even declared the unborn "human". If someone OTHER than the mother harms an unborn baby they can be held criminally liable. Even if it is in the same category of "dog" or whatever, there is still criminal punishment for harming a dog.
The issue is still premise. What is the unborn? If life, then do we value life. Joe, there is no value of life. The reality is that this comes from a misunderstanding that we are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God. This is not a legislative or judicial issue, nor does it have a solution from the same. It is a heart issue.
And I still say, "Another's (read "YOUR") life trumps MY choice, every time."
Well, yes, you know that, and I know that, but does the bear know?
That's the punchline to a funny joke, but I don't remember the set up. Ah well.
I disagree that it's not a legislative or judicial issue. It necessarily MUST be, because no matter which side you're on, you've got to have the force of law behind you.
I agree with you that the unborn child is in fact an unborn child who, if left alone, will in all probability shortly be a born child, and the timeframe within which you choose to kill that child does not absolve you from moral right and wrong.
However, that knowledge only keeps ME from having an abortion, so if I wish to limit the scope of another's personal freedom then I have arrived at a legislative or judicial issue. Personally, I've never heard a fetus compared to a pet, either, but in regard to your comment the metaphor is useful: yes, there are criminal punishments for harming a dog, but if I harm the same dog in order to protect a human life, I am a hero.
Again, I'm on your side of the grand debate; just a bit of fresh perspective here.
Few points.
The basis for saying that it is not a legal / judicial issue was that it first and foremost must be from the heart; not that it doesn't matter if the law is behind you. Of course there must be law in order to crush the opposition... er...
The law is simply secondary and a followup to the heart. It goes to the bigger issue of the value of life / humanity.
The analogy of killing a dog in self-defense or protecting another is actually pretty close because of the "in case of danger to the mother" argument. It is actually a reason for posting the "choice" for Life (of her baby) in the story from the previous post. She was in danger, yet... dare I say it.
The life of another trumped her choice.
Of course, if a dog attacks me, I'm poppin a cap in it.
Let's see... oh yeah. The knowledge of the value of life is NOT the only thing keeping you from having an abortion. The lack of a uterus is. The law doesn't actually keep you from doing something wrong; but only declares what you have done is wrong. I reference Paul and the book of Romans for that one.
One last thing (and I enjoyed actually having a comment posted):
I almost started my previous comment with only the punchline to the great joke:
Well, it sounds like a squirrel; but I'm going to say, "Jesus?"
Oh, and "legal precident" as a means for rendering a decision is killing the judicial system.
Post a Comment