Charlie Crist, the current governor of Florida vetoed a bill that would require women seeking an abortion in their first trimester to have an ultrasound prior to the abortion. The quote of interest to me is where Crist says,
Individuals hold strong personal views on the issue of life, as do I,” Crist wrote. “However, personal views should not result in laws that unwisely expand the role of government and coerce people to obtain medical tests or procedures that are not medically necessary.
The problem with Crist’s view is that it contradicts all laws on murder. Crist says that our personal views of [human] life should not influence how the government protects human life.
What Crist is trying to say is that even though he and others might personally view human life as beginning at conception, it’s not our duty to create laws that enforce those views upon others. Based on one of my previous entries (A Logical Look at Legalized Abortions), Crist is faced with a few problems. Namely, he must explain first whether or not the government has the duty to protect any and all innocent human life within its jurisdiction. If the government lacks that ability, then we must ask him to begin submitting laws to reflect that belief. If the government does have a duty to protect innocent human life within its jurisdiction, then we must ask him what he views a fetus to be.
If he says that a fetus isn’t a human, then we must ask him what he basis this on. When he fails to provide a reasonable philosophical and scientific response (which he would, just as someone denying the earth is a sphere would lack the logical and scientific evidence to make their case), we must then ask him why he is basing his belief off non-facts. If he is too arrogant to admit his mistake, at the very least we must point out that by his own standard (to not base law off personal feelings), by allowing abortions to continue without at least trying to throw roadblocks in the way of abortion, he is allowing his personal feelings to interfere with his execution of the law. If he is humble enough to admit his mistake and admits that a fetus is an innocent human life, then we must ask why he excludes them from being protected under the law.
Of course, Crist would most likely circumvent the logical trap he’s in and instead say,
“Such measures do not change hearts, which is the only true and effective way to ensure that a new life coming into the world is loved, cherished and receives the care that is deserved…”
When he says this, we could simply ask, “Does this mean children who are currently living who are not loved, cherished, or receiving care deserve to die at the hands of their caretakers?” He is left with two responses; either affirm that he indeed thinks such children should be killed, or he could respond with moral disgust.
If he believes such children should be killed, then he must once again be consistent and start trying to pass laws reflecting that belief. If, however, he responds in moral disgust, we must ask why a fetus is any different (ethically speaking).
No matter what Crist says, he has absolutely no justification for vetoing this bill. Such a person who can’t think clearly or ethically doesn’t deserve the office of Governor.