Anti-abortion activists have got "faith-based" reasons down pat. Now abortion-rights supporters are joining the fray with ridiculous reasons.
By Chuck Soder
210 west Writer [send email]
Abortion advocates found their champion 30 years ago in "Jane Roe" -- Norma McCorvey -- who helped make abortion legal in the United States. Nowadays McCorvey hates abortion. To stop it, she's trying to overturn the decision she helped put in place: Roe vs. Wade.
McCorvey's motives for filing the June 16 motion against the decision are likely influenced by her newfound Christianity. Her views on the topic took a U-turn in 1995 -- the same year she was baptized by an anti-abortion activist, the Rev. Phillip Benham.
McCorvey's former posse of abortion supporters is bound to pounce on her for this move. After all, most of them are liberals, who usually hate faith-based arguments against abortion. Those arguments, they say, lack hard evidence.
But beware. One particular pro-abortion argument is just as illogical and much more threatening.
Supreme Court justices don't quote scripture in their arguments against abortion. They don't mention God or souls. But in Colautti vs. Franklin, abortion fanatics managed to sell the courts this ridiculous assumption: Because a fetus is attached to a woman and reliant on her, it has no rights.
This 1979 decision made it legal for states to protect the life of a fetus only once it is able survive outside the womb on machines. If a fetus can live without mom, it has the right to live, according to the courts.
By focusing on a fetus' ability to survive, this decision dodges this super-important question: "When do a sperm and egg officially become human?" It's the only question that matters because, once you're human, you deserve rights. Hence the term "human rights."
I don't know when life begins, but I can narrow it down: Abortion supporters are wrong when they say being "attached to mom" and "reliant on mom" amount to being "not human."
Sure, a fetus and a mother share an umbilical cord, but -- regardless of what feminists say -- a fetus is not part of a mother's body. A DNA test can prove it.
Two separate organisms with different DNA. They are attached. So why does mom get all the rights? Why not give them all to junior -- who has almost all the traits of a newborn, including a nice little brain?
To answer this question, those who support abortions late in pregnancy always cite that the fetus relies on the mother. This makes her queen, ruler, master.
By this logic, Michael Jackson was "master" late last year when he dangled his youngest child from the edge of a balcony. The infant was definitely reliant on good 'ole Jacko. His grip -- his body -- kept the baby alive. Was he allowed to release his grip, allowing the baby to plummet four stories to its death? Nope. The baby was clearly human. Its reliance on the King of Pop didn't matter.
For some odd reason, reliance matters to lots of people. Religious beliefs sway the politics of many, but at least they have some stable definition of when life begins. Those who support the Supreme Court's 1979 ruling are the ones to worry about. To them the fetus only deserves human rights if a hospital has the high-tech life-support equipment to keep the thing alive outside its master.
Abortion is simply one generation overtaking another generation. Saying that you are able to have an abortion when the baby is dependant on the mother is bogus. An infant relies on it's mother even when it is born. That doesn't mean you can kill it. If you don't want to get pregnant, be responsible and don't have sex. It's rather easy, if you have will-power. Besides, sex shouldn't be just for the pleasure...it's for bonding and procreation. Abortion is an escape to irresponsibility. Pro-Choice people are just afraid to face the truth. Abortion is murder. Period.