Apologies for the length of this comment. It is an excerpt from a longer column I wrote some years ago for an online publication.
Over the years I’ve come up with a way to approach this issue with Leftists that, while not changing their minds at least gives them pause for thought. Bear with me if you would as I’ll be setting aside some of our conservative objections to abortion (it doesn’t mean I don’t believe them, it’s only for the sake of this argument) in order to provide a critically thought-out conclusion.
While generalizing is always suspect, a good portion of those of us on the Right believe that life begins at conception. That the Lord, from whom all rights are derived, ensouls that ‘clump of cells’ as soon as the child is conceived and that from that moment on we have not bacteria in a petri dish, but a living child; with all the God given gifts and potential any child represents. The Left’s objection to making laws against abortion on this basis are the ‘theocracy on earth’ emotionalism outlined above and that not everyone is a Christian, ergo you cannot ‘force Christian beliefs’ on them via law. Never mind that forcing non-Christian secular beliefs on the population at large is exactly what the left lives to do. Basing law on theology means codifying in law a faith that not all share. And they are required to take it on faith that the ‘clump of cells’ is a living child. The clergy doesn’t know when life begins, they’re only speaking from faith. Very well, let’s grant them that argument.
As we all saw during this Covid-19 ‘pandemic’, the Left love to quote science. We have been admonished to ‘follow the science’ and let ‘science and data’ drive our decision making and public policy. I have no objection to that, really. What I object to is the Left’s scientism, which consists of cherry-picking results that support their political objectives. More germane to this column, the Left ignores scientific skepticism and the admittance of ignorance that is the heart of science. Because their argument against abortion law is that ‘medical science’ says that the ‘clump of cells’ is not a person. It’s not alive. It can’t survive outside the mother. But if you take into account that science may learn tomorrow or next week that the ‘clump of cellls’ is in fact alive and could survive outside of the mother then there is some doubt is raised in this regard. So, science doesn’t know whether or not that child is a living child with any more certainty than the clergy does. This is a hard sell to cult of scientism but if they’re honest they’ll agree that science is not omnipotent, that it doesn’t know everything, that it’s a best guess based on what we know today. So, we’re making public policy on a foundation that’s only marginally more solid than faith. In fact is faith, only in something besides God.
Which leads me to government, the one thing the Left seems to actually worship. Government makes public policy. The public policy based on the 1973 SCOTUS ruling was that infanticide is the law of the land. So far in our discussion, we’ve come to the conclusion that neither science nor the clergy can determine when a child is alive, when that ‘clump of cells’ becomes a citizen of the United States of America protected by her laws. So, are we then to believe that a group of bureaucrats or a group of lawyers have some insight possessed by neither the Lord nor the finest scientific minds in our society? I reject that argument out of hand. I will not trust a government that struggles to deliver mail and cannot live within its own means to tell me when life begins.
Which brings me neatly along to the death penalty. Many on the Left (and Right) object to the execution of criminals convicted of heinous crimes. To many Christians, it is not the state’s role to take a life in any circumstances. And while I have nothing but respect for that belief, I don’t’ share it. And yes, it’s true that up to 4% of death penalty convictions are innocent people as later proved. Current public policy allows for people for whom we can overwhelmingly prove guilt to be removed from society permanently.
What makes the death penalty cogent to our discussion here is that the Left loves to trot out ‘right wing support’ for the death penalty as evidence that we’re really not prof-life in our objection to abortion. As if they’ve pulled off some great feat of intellectual legerdemain in calling out the Right in a stance of crowing hypocrisy. And my answer to that is we’re talking about innocent life in the case of abortion and life in the case of the death penalty where the person has been duly tried by a jury of their peers; in many cases multiple times. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ is the legal standard that must be met in the initial trial and the years of appeals that follow. We go to such obscene lengths that people die of natural causes on death row before they receive their sentence.
Which brings us Dear Reader, to the core of our discussion. Here’s what I lay out to the Leftists I argue with. The Right to Life is codified in our founding documents. Innocent life is protected under the law. Our entire legal framework is designed to protect the innocent from the guilty and allow the innocent a mechanism to redress those grievance via the courts. In some cases, our legal system allows for a citizen to be denied that right to life if their crime is deemed so heinous that no other penalty is appropriate. Those people, who are most certainly to be guilty, can actually die before sentence is carried out because we place such a value (reasonable doubt) on life that we don’t want to take it. And these are people who are most certainly guilty. But, reasonable doubt.
So, in innocent life of a child, the clergy doesn’t know when life begins. If we are being honest about the nature of science, science doesn’t know with certainty about when life begins. And it’s a lock that a bureaucrat or a lawyer doesn’t know when life begins. So, liberals, if you’re being true to the rule of law, if we are being true as a society to our founding beliefs; shouldn’t we as society be protecting the innocent child’s right to life since there is reasonable doubt in all quarters about whether or not that child is alive. We default to letting criminals die in jail given reasonable doubt (or lack thereof) but an innocent child doesn’t deserve the same consideration? How are we not denying an innocent person (based on reasonable doubt) the due process of law?
I've yet to get a cogent, reasonable counter to this argument.
There are none that aren' conflicting lies. It's like refiring to our form of gov't as demoracy or representative democracy. (OPPOSING TERMS - i.e. Cultural Marxism or Dialectic Materialism - or the Frence Revolution!
Oh! I had NOT realized that that was what they were doing: embedding abortion into our State constitution. I knew that there had to be some kind of bait and switch though, because PILLEN was all over this like stray cats on a fish.
The prolife pregnancy center-- Birthright?--had a big event earlier this summer where he was there and they were gathering signatures on the petition to add this initiative to the ballot. I thought it was interesting at the time. I very nearly went to find out just what they were all up to because "Pro-Life" and "Pillen" just did not add up for me. (I'm dealing with serious health issues and it wasn't a good day, so I didn't, but now I really wish I'd found a way to get over there anyway)
Apologies for the length of this comment. It is an excerpt from a longer column I wrote some years ago for an online publication.
Over the years I’ve come up with a way to approach this issue with Leftists that, while not changing their minds at least gives them pause for thought. Bear with me if you would as I’ll be setting aside some of our conservative objections to abortion (it doesn’t mean I don’t believe them, it’s only for the sake of this argument) in order to provide a critically thought-out conclusion.
While generalizing is always suspect, a good portion of those of us on the Right believe that life begins at conception. That the Lord, from whom all rights are derived, ensouls that ‘clump of cells’ as soon as the child is conceived and that from that moment on we have not bacteria in a petri dish, but a living child; with all the God given gifts and potential any child represents. The Left’s objection to making laws against abortion on this basis are the ‘theocracy on earth’ emotionalism outlined above and that not everyone is a Christian, ergo you cannot ‘force Christian beliefs’ on them via law. Never mind that forcing non-Christian secular beliefs on the population at large is exactly what the left lives to do. Basing law on theology means codifying in law a faith that not all share. And they are required to take it on faith that the ‘clump of cells’ is a living child. The clergy doesn’t know when life begins, they’re only speaking from faith. Very well, let’s grant them that argument.
As we all saw during this Covid-19 ‘pandemic’, the Left love to quote science. We have been admonished to ‘follow the science’ and let ‘science and data’ drive our decision making and public policy. I have no objection to that, really. What I object to is the Left’s scientism, which consists of cherry-picking results that support their political objectives. More germane to this column, the Left ignores scientific skepticism and the admittance of ignorance that is the heart of science. Because their argument against abortion law is that ‘medical science’ says that the ‘clump of cells’ is not a person. It’s not alive. It can’t survive outside the mother. But if you take into account that science may learn tomorrow or next week that the ‘clump of cellls’ is in fact alive and could survive outside of the mother then there is some doubt is raised in this regard. So, science doesn’t know whether or not that child is a living child with any more certainty than the clergy does. This is a hard sell to cult of scientism but if they’re honest they’ll agree that science is not omnipotent, that it doesn’t know everything, that it’s a best guess based on what we know today. So, we’re making public policy on a foundation that’s only marginally more solid than faith. In fact is faith, only in something besides God.
Which leads me to government, the one thing the Left seems to actually worship. Government makes public policy. The public policy based on the 1973 SCOTUS ruling was that infanticide is the law of the land. So far in our discussion, we’ve come to the conclusion that neither science nor the clergy can determine when a child is alive, when that ‘clump of cells’ becomes a citizen of the United States of America protected by her laws. So, are we then to believe that a group of bureaucrats or a group of lawyers have some insight possessed by neither the Lord nor the finest scientific minds in our society? I reject that argument out of hand. I will not trust a government that struggles to deliver mail and cannot live within its own means to tell me when life begins.
Which brings me neatly along to the death penalty. Many on the Left (and Right) object to the execution of criminals convicted of heinous crimes. To many Christians, it is not the state’s role to take a life in any circumstances. And while I have nothing but respect for that belief, I don’t’ share it. And yes, it’s true that up to 4% of death penalty convictions are innocent people as later proved. Current public policy allows for people for whom we can overwhelmingly prove guilt to be removed from society permanently.
What makes the death penalty cogent to our discussion here is that the Left loves to trot out ‘right wing support’ for the death penalty as evidence that we’re really not prof-life in our objection to abortion. As if they’ve pulled off some great feat of intellectual legerdemain in calling out the Right in a stance of crowing hypocrisy. And my answer to that is we’re talking about innocent life in the case of abortion and life in the case of the death penalty where the person has been duly tried by a jury of their peers; in many cases multiple times. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ is the legal standard that must be met in the initial trial and the years of appeals that follow. We go to such obscene lengths that people die of natural causes on death row before they receive their sentence.
Which brings us Dear Reader, to the core of our discussion. Here’s what I lay out to the Leftists I argue with. The Right to Life is codified in our founding documents. Innocent life is protected under the law. Our entire legal framework is designed to protect the innocent from the guilty and allow the innocent a mechanism to redress those grievance via the courts. In some cases, our legal system allows for a citizen to be denied that right to life if their crime is deemed so heinous that no other penalty is appropriate. Those people, who are most certainly to be guilty, can actually die before sentence is carried out because we place such a value (reasonable doubt) on life that we don’t want to take it. And these are people who are most certainly guilty. But, reasonable doubt.
So, in innocent life of a child, the clergy doesn’t know when life begins. If we are being honest about the nature of science, science doesn’t know with certainty about when life begins. And it’s a lock that a bureaucrat or a lawyer doesn’t know when life begins. So, liberals, if you’re being true to the rule of law, if we are being true as a society to our founding beliefs; shouldn’t we as society be protecting the innocent child’s right to life since there is reasonable doubt in all quarters about whether or not that child is alive. We default to letting criminals die in jail given reasonable doubt (or lack thereof) but an innocent child doesn’t deserve the same consideration? How are we not denying an innocent person (based on reasonable doubt) the due process of law?
I've yet to get a cogent, reasonable counter to this argument.
Thanks, John. Always appreciate your thoughts.
People are so hypocritical.
When do we say that a woman is pregnant? When a chemistry test confirms pregnancy.
Why do we show all these videos about sperm and egg meeting if that's not when life begins?
If abortion isn't murder, why is the murder of a pregnant woman considered a double homicide in so many states?
God bless!
Give me a little time to digest this and respond. I've been recording a legislative committee hearing all morning
There are none that aren' conflicting lies. It's like refiring to our form of gov't as demoracy or representative democracy. (OPPOSING TERMS - i.e. Cultural Marxism or Dialectic Materialism - or the Frence Revolution!
Oh! I had NOT realized that that was what they were doing: embedding abortion into our State constitution. I knew that there had to be some kind of bait and switch though, because PILLEN was all over this like stray cats on a fish.
Please tell me more about Pillen' role.
The prolife pregnancy center-- Birthright?--had a big event earlier this summer where he was there and they were gathering signatures on the petition to add this initiative to the ballot. I thought it was interesting at the time. I very nearly went to find out just what they were all up to because "Pro-Life" and "Pillen" just did not add up for me. (I'm dealing with serious health issues and it wasn't a good day, so I didn't, but now I really wish I'd found a way to get over there anyway)