June 27, 2007
A Reasonably Presented Pro-life Position
Based in logic rather than religious conviction.
This was written by part-time Hugh Hewitt.com contributor Dean Barnett and published in the Boston Globe last month. When I read it I felt it hit as close to my own personal feelings on the issue better than anything else I've ever read and wanted to share it. But I never got around to it. So I'm doing it now before I lose the link.
Rather than reproduce it, I'll refer it for those interested. Since this is such a polarizing issue, I would normally stay far away and stick to posting Monty Python YouTube videos. But it's particularly well written and I would encourage those on either side of the debate to ponder it.
That is all.
Posted by Gary at June 27, 2007 05:00 PM | TrackBackHey, check out http://www.pardonlibby.net
Posted by: Jake at June 27, 2007 04:31 PMI mostly agree. I cannot distinguish between a baby 1 hour after birth and a fetus 1 hour before birth. To me, there is no difference. And I have no idea where to draw the line that would logically denote a difference, a change in human status. This is something I struggle with.
However, I am not convinced that there is a legislative solution to the abortion problem that would hold up under a constitutional challenge for long. Nor do I believe the answer lies with the Courts. Our culture needs to change- one individual at a time.
Posted by: Dick at June 27, 2007 05:14 PMI have always thought, for purpose of debate on this issue, that a fetus is considered "a person" when it is able to survive outside the womb. Up till then, the fetus was part of the woman's body and, the woman had jusisdiction over her body, the unsurvivable fetus included.
Clearly, that is not the case as partial birth abortion was debated. These were humans that could survive outside the womb and were terminated.
I would be OK with the "if it can survive then it is a person" methodology of defining this issue. Others disagree and, I think they disagree so vehemently because medical science keeps pushing back on the age of a "surviving" fetus.
For the pro choice contingent this narrows their window significantly. That's why they fought so hard for the barbaric proceedure known as partial birth abortion. I think they viewed it as a camel nose under the tent situation. They are right...
Image courtesy of the lovely and talented 