Recently, Alaska has been in the news for putting a parental notification law on the ballot. Of course, multiple people have jumped up to say that such a law somehow violates women’s rights. How the law violates women’s rights when these same “women” (under-aged girls) have to get parental consent for medical treatment, not just notification. This means Planned Parenthood argues that when it comes to killing a fetus, a 15 year old has a right to her body, but when it comes to consenting to a field trip or the like, the 15 year old no longer has a right over her body. This is a contradiction, but I digress.
I’ve been thinking more and more about people who are against abortion, but then qualify their statement to say, “But I would never make it illegal for others.” This forces the question, “Why not?” The only proper reason to be against abortions is that one believes the fetus to be a human person. If one believes the fetus to be a human person, then it should follow that one believes the fetus has rights.
One way to look at it is by the possible logical scenarios for abortion:
(1) All fetuses are persons; all persons are entitled to the basic right to life; therefore, all fetuses have the basic right to life (abortion is always wrong, with certain medical exceptions)
(2) Some fetuses are persons; all persons are entitled to the basic right to life; therefore, some fetuses have the basic right to life (abortion is sometimes wrong)
(3) At least some fetuses are not persons; all persons are entitled to the basic right to life; therefore, at least some fetsuses do not have the basic right to life (at least some abortions are not wrong)
(4) No fetuses are persons; all persons are entitled to the basic right to life; therefore, no fetuses have a basic right to life (no abortion is wrong)
One of the saddest things about the Obama administration is his appointment of people with ideologies that are far off in left field. Some of the ideologies are so absurd that you’d expect them to be in some futuristic novel that satires our current culture. For instance, Brave New World had the “orgy porgy” that, at the time, was unthinkable and a satire. In the modern day, however, it’s done. Think of the “rainbow parties” that are thrown to initiate girls in high school.
Unfortunately, the ideas of Obama’s appointees are not satire or fiction – these are real people, with real ideas, who are in positions of authority. Take, for instance, John Holdren who believes that animals and trees (or any organic life for that matter) has the right to sue in court. In other words, that tree in your front yard can sue you if you do anything to harm it. Granted, trees are non-rational objects and animals lack the higher intelligence to actually bring you to court, but apparently they should hold that right.
It would be funny if it weren’t for this one simple fact – these same people argue that a fetus in the womb, a human life, has no rights whatsoever. These same people argue that the elderly and humans who are “past their prime” and putting a drain on society should be put to death in a “humane” way.
So, the tree in the front yard, or those weeds that keep growing up in your garden have more rights – in the eyes of the Obama administration – than the human in the womb or the human in the last years of his life. This is truly the dumbest, idiotic, and morally bankrupt administration the United States has ever seen.
I write this intending to avoid a religious argument or religious justification for abortion. While I believe certain “sins” can only occur with a religious backing (i.e. blasphemy against God or why homosexuality is wrong [having the religious backing doesn’t mean these views of morality are subjective, merely that one must invoke God in explaining why they are wrong]), there are others that one can look at through a secular point of view and still see these actions as being wrong (i.e. murder and abortion). Thus, though I believe Christianity has the best definition for humanity and the best argument against abortion, I believe one can use an entirely secular argument to discredit abortion. This article attempts to do that. Continue reading