One of the biggest arguments of our time is the argument about life. Some people don't believe that life begins until a child is completely separate from the mother. Others say that life begins at conception. Arguments are made about the importance of black lives, blue lives, or all lives. And every single one of these arguments would have a valid basis and deserve to be heard before they are discarded or tossed away.
In fact, one of the biggest charges that pro-choicers level at pro-lifers is the argument about capital punishment. If every life is precious and important, if every life deserves a chance, if every life ought to have an advocate - how could a pro-lifer ever stand behind the concept of the death penalty? What makes that fair? How is taking the life of a grown person any different from taking the life of what pro-lifers refer to as an unborn child? Who is going to advocate for the prisoners on death row?
Pro-lifers have many reasons to fight against the rising tide of the pro-choice movement. Besides the religious basis that most pro-lifers have grounded themselves in, they have scientific proof to support their case and recent cultural bias against Planned Parenthood on their side. However, besides religion, science, and cultural bias, the pro-life opinion is firmly based on the Constitution of the United States.
Yes, the Founding Fathers would have unanimously voted against legalizing abortion. They would have argued against the decision made in Roe v. Wade and the recent Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision. Because they would have found the idea of abortion so heinous, in fact, they wrote a provision in the Constitution of the United States against it - becoming legally binding and the law of the land as soon as it was ratified.
In the Fifth Amendment to the Consitution, the American people agreed:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land and naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. (Emphasis added)
The constitutional argument is that there has been no due process at any time during the actual abortion procedure. A woman becomes pregnant and finds out about it without involving the law. She makes the decision to keep or abort the pregnancy without involving the law. The doctor performs the abortion procedure - whatever method that may be - without involving the law.
However, science has proven that, to use the terminology of the pro-choicers, a fetus is a separate entity from the mother. It is not her tissue; it has its own blood supply, it grows its own body and bodily systems, and it develops - on its own, given the time - its own thoughts, desires, and psyche.
Because of this scientific evidence, a woman does not become pregnant with some amalgamation of tissue. She becomes pregnant with another human being and, as such, has no right to decide to terminate that human being's life. Certainly not without due process of law.
Perhaps, I would not go so far as to say that all abortion should be illegal. I do understand that, for paperwork reason, a fallopian pregnancy that is ended to save the mother's life is documented as an abortion. However, I would go so far as to say that any fetus that is growing and prospering - in other words, is healthy - cannot be legally terminated without due process of law.
To address the argument that capital punishment is just as tragic as abortion: it absolutely is not. For one thing, that human life has already been given a chance to thrive, to contribute, to be a productive member of society. Yet, that human life chose to commit acts that essentially forfeited his right to life. Secondly, the human life on death row will not be executed arbitrarily. That life was given every right that the Constitution protects and that he deserved. Capital punishment is never handed down without first having been through the due process of law.
I will admit that anytime a human life ends - no matter who that life is or what that life has done - is a sad time. Because all life is precious and important. Because human life ought to be preserved. However, while capital punishment does take a life, it is done in the interest of justice and preservation of society. No one that blatantly disregards the laws of a country should be allowed to continue in that society - or at a cost to that society.
I do not see abortion and capital punishment as existing on the same level of ideology. Neither does the Constitution. Because one life was given a chance and the other had all opportunity snatched away.
Yes, we all have rights. But, the rights of one person end where the rights of another begin. Every woman has the right to live - and to choose how to live. But, then again, so did every life that was aborted before it had even begun.
No comments:
Post a Comment