The United States Supreme Court has made a horrifying mistake. Some people have been given the freedom to deprive others of important rights and assistance, rights and assistance upon which those others rely, basic things that ought to be free to everyone!
But these folks, the ones who were given this freedom, succeeded at a daring ruse. They wanted to act on a self-centered and destructive attitude, so they portrayed it as a fundamental right. That is to say, they made it seem like their rights were in jeopardy when people were merely asking them to rise to the basest requirements of justice.
The court believed them, overlooking all the damage that decision would support. Unlike those people above, other people’s actual rights were in jeopardy in fact, not just imagination. Not made up distortions or exaggerations, but real and fundamental rights were in jeopardy.
I am of course talking about Roe v. Wade, which gave women the unilateral authority to kill other humans beings based on such weighty considerations as convenience and whimsy. If you need to read the first paragraphs again, now that you understand I’m not talking about Hobby Lobby, go ahead.
Just to be clear, a fetus…. Actually, let’s back that up. A zygote is both human and alive; that’s not in question. Both sides have to agree to it because it happens to be a fairly indisputable set of scientific facts. Abortion is an intentional act to end the life (kill) a living human. The only question is whether that living human should have the right not to be intentionally killed.
Abortion advocates argue that unborn children shouldn’t really be counted as people (usually based on a completely nonsensical understanding of the importance of “brain waves”), that what’s at stake is women’s freedom and destiny, that defenders of “forced birth” are trying to hold women back and subjugate them.
It all sounds very evocative–it certainly stirs up tremendous emotion in abortion advocates–but it boils down to the claim that women shouldn’t be required to accept the rights of others when doing so involves any personal hardship.
Personally, I am sympathetic to the hardship involved–pregnancy and childbirth are hard–but human rights trump hardship. Should we have let slave-owners deny the rights of their slaves because emancipation was going to be hard?
Actually, the slavery comparison is more appropriate than it might seem. You know who else used “science” to deny basic rights to people they argued were not human enough? You know who else felt like their destiny was imperiled by vicious restrictions on their obvious rights? You know who else made up inflammatory and ridiculous terms to make their opponents seem like monsters? You know who seems like the monsters in retrospect?
And the sad thing is that abortion is a miserable reality even for the mother. It’s most often a dejected and desperate act of a woman who feels powerless, an act with serious, harmful, long-term emotional and medical consequences, in addition to the death of a child. It isn’t some triumph of liberty and autonomy, through which women exercise their ability to determine their own destiny. Women don’t choose it because they feel free to. They choose it because they don’t feel free not to.
In short, we are killing those who need us and who cannot defend themselves, and who are so dependent on us through no fault of their own, and we are doing it in pursuit of our own degradation and harm, because we no longer have the moral courage either to endure hardship or to support those who endure it. We certainly don’t have the moral courage to say to the clamoring throng who support abortion that what they defend is twisted, sick, and evil.