An extended treatment of the realities of the abortion regime enabled by Roe v. Wade fifty years ago, now debated by the American people with the return of the issue to state-by-state consideration.
“ When life begins and whether a human fetus should be considered a person deserving of human rights is increasingly becoming a matter of scientific debate and not an abstract consideration for theologians and philosophers. Brain activity, a beating heart, physical animation, cognizant response to outside stimuli, and viability outside the womb are all measurable evidence of a living being. Common sense ethics and human rights, not just religion and philosophy, are beginning to suggest that unrestricted abortion up to the moment of birth is an immoral disregard for the self-evident humanity of a human fetus.”
This, to me, is the crucial point. Abortion activists often yell about how the pro-life position is a “religious one,” by which they mean to discredit it (not to me but to others) as antithetical to the separation of church and state. On Twitter you’ll see people tweeting about how Dobbs turned America into a “theocracy” or a “fascist theocracy,” and similar nonsense.
But modern science increasingly has made it clear that a fetus is alive, which means that it (he or she) is a living human being. As unfashionable as natural-rights-based morality is today, it follows directly from a belief that rights are natural and not invented by society or government to the logical conclusion that ending an unborn life is murder and a great evil. It follows from a political philosophy that holds the purpose of government as the protection of natural rights that the government should outlaw abortion, just as it outlaws murder when committed against children and adults.
To add to all of this is that America is surprisingly outside the regular scope on this matter when it comes to other liberal democracies. Most of the nation's in Europe, for example, only allow abortion on demand in the first trimester and have very stringent laws regarding abortion in the later trimesters. America is essentially out of date and out of touch with the moral development of how modern societies attempt to split the difference between the right for a woman to choose and the right of an unborn child to live. Pro-abortion advocates in America are so far beyond typical modern moral determinations that they would consider abortion law approaching those of other far more progressive countries as theocratic and fascist. It demonstrates just how much Roe v. Wade has distorted the debate about abortion in our country. We shouldn't even have to argue about the morality of ending an unborn child's life after they reach the stage of viability. That should be self-evident and obvious. It's the first trimester where an honest debate exists.
Fantastic work, Justin!
“ When life begins and whether a human fetus should be considered a person deserving of human rights is increasingly becoming a matter of scientific debate and not an abstract consideration for theologians and philosophers. Brain activity, a beating heart, physical animation, cognizant response to outside stimuli, and viability outside the womb are all measurable evidence of a living being. Common sense ethics and human rights, not just religion and philosophy, are beginning to suggest that unrestricted abortion up to the moment of birth is an immoral disregard for the self-evident humanity of a human fetus.”
This, to me, is the crucial point. Abortion activists often yell about how the pro-life position is a “religious one,” by which they mean to discredit it (not to me but to others) as antithetical to the separation of church and state. On Twitter you’ll see people tweeting about how Dobbs turned America into a “theocracy” or a “fascist theocracy,” and similar nonsense.
But modern science increasingly has made it clear that a fetus is alive, which means that it (he or she) is a living human being. As unfashionable as natural-rights-based morality is today, it follows directly from a belief that rights are natural and not invented by society or government to the logical conclusion that ending an unborn life is murder and a great evil. It follows from a political philosophy that holds the purpose of government as the protection of natural rights that the government should outlaw abortion, just as it outlaws murder when committed against children and adults.
To add to all of this is that America is surprisingly outside the regular scope on this matter when it comes to other liberal democracies. Most of the nation's in Europe, for example, only allow abortion on demand in the first trimester and have very stringent laws regarding abortion in the later trimesters. America is essentially out of date and out of touch with the moral development of how modern societies attempt to split the difference between the right for a woman to choose and the right of an unborn child to live. Pro-abortion advocates in America are so far beyond typical modern moral determinations that they would consider abortion law approaching those of other far more progressive countries as theocratic and fascist. It demonstrates just how much Roe v. Wade has distorted the debate about abortion in our country. We shouldn't even have to argue about the morality of ending an unborn child's life after they reach the stage of viability. That should be self-evident and obvious. It's the first trimester where an honest debate exists.