Last week I wrote on the
horror of what just happened in New York, where the legislature passed a law on
the dark anniversary of Roe v Wade that, amongst other things, achieved these
three devastating political objectives of the abortion lobby:
Non-doctors, including nurse practitioners,
physician assistants, and midwives, are now permitted to commit this seriously
invasive and dangerous act of abortion on women.
Dismembering a full-term baby up to the point of
birth is now fully legal provided that the mother declare her emotional health
requires the baby’s life be terminated.
Legal protections (like basic medical care) for
babies who survived an abortion attempt and are born alive were repealed.
Unsurprisingly, the supporters of legal abortion pushed back
against my opposition to the law, arguing that it was necessary for a host of
reasons. One of the most peculiar
defenses was this persistent characterization that people who are pro-life only
want women forced to deliver babies but then don’t care at all what happens to
the baby (or the mother) once he is born.
Obviously the preponderance of the evidence proves the
opposite. The overwhelming number of
free crisis pregnancy clinics that are supported entirely not from government
funds, but from the generosity of pro-life Americans. Still, besides that commonly ignored reality,
the argument that the economic and social concerns for a born child somehow
outweigh that child’s right to live is bizarre and rather macabre.
Perhaps introducing a parallel moral issue would help
In the post-Civil War, Reconstruction era of American
history there was a huge question of what should be done with former slaves who
had no education, no income, no marketable skills, no land, no home, and no
hope to secure any of those things.
While the 13th Amendment had freed them from slavery, they
were anything but free from those economic and social challenges.
Would anyone in their proper mind think it was an
appropriate argument for a person then to say: “These people wanting to abolish
slavery aren’t going to want to pay for the healthcare and education of all
those slaves they are freeing. So we
have to keep slavery legal.” Obviously
That’s why, even though all those economic and social challenges of having children are real and legitimate, they do not (nor should they) justify the perpetuation of an immoral act like killing the children in the womb. Surely even the most ardent supporter of abortion rights would agree with this, no?
None of us should suggest that by ending abortion we
wouldn’t experience a number of social concerns that we have address. But can’t people of goodwill also agree that
those concerns do not themselves justify the act of abortion?
Connoisseurs of middlebrow literature love Nicholas Sparks. Most of his books have hit the best seller lists, and several of them have become hit movies. His subgenre is a relatively chaste romantic f …