And here is a key excerpt:
When all is said and done, then, there is one and only one pro-life argument: that abortion kills a separate, living human being. That argument is premised on a simple proposition of biology, not one of theology: the human organism—the entity that is first a zygote, then an embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, teenager, and adult—is the same human biological organism, merely at different stages of his or her life cycle. (If you had killed me at any of those stages, you would have killed me.)
Is there really any room for doubt about this, as a factual proposition? If not, shouldn’t that be the key point in any debate over abortion, and the response to any red-herring argument about women’s rights, social policy, sexual ethics, or men’s behavior? If the unborn child is a human being, does that not profoundly limit the scope of morally allowable arguments that might be made to justify killing him or her? Doesn’t it essentially eliminate all such arguments (except self-defense—where killing the fetus is a tragic necessity to preserve the life of the mother)?
So, what do you know (not feel--know) about the reality of life in the womb? Is the unborn child a living human being? Is he or she alive? Is he or she human?
For me, the answer to those questions is why I am 100% sure that Roe v Wade is wrong because abortion is the violent taking of the life of a living human being.
And here is a short article on the science of life in the womb:
Abortion, Science Unique from Day One: Pro-Life Is Pro-Science
No comments:
Post a Comment