What Neil Gorsuch Won’t Say about Abortion

found online by Raymond

 
From Michael Kinsley:

When it comes to reproduction, there are two “bright lines” pre-installed by nature—conception at one end and birth at the other—but neither of them is of much use if you want to avoid painting yourself into a corner. Both sides of the abortion argument would benefit from a different “bright line,” a moment in the gestation of a fetus when it becomes “human” and has “human rights,” starting with the right not to be aborted. At the end of your life, your humanity disappears instantaneously, like flipping a switch. It’s natural to think that the same must be true about the beginning of your existence as a human being. But it isn’t.

– More –
 

One thought on “What Neil Gorsuch Won’t Say about Abortion”

  1. Michael Kinsely states that, “Both sides of the abortion argument would benefit from a different ‘bright line,’ a moment in the gestation of a fetus when it becomes ‘human’ and has ‘human rights,’ starting with the right not to be aborted.”

    I would submit that it is scientifically inarguable that a new life with its own unique DNA is indeed created at the very moment of conception. Further, that life is also inarguably human. What else would it be, by definition? The rest is just window-dressing in order to justify the elimination of that life by other human means.

    “The process of human reproduction creates far more embryos than babies. The vast majority of them fail, for a variety of natural reasons, often at such an early stage that the woman involved may never be aware that a life has come and gone.”

    What? A “life has come and gone”? I thought there was some scientific or moral ambiguity about when these parasitic cells were actually considered to be “life” by those supporting abortion rights. Grown humans may also die from cancer that strikes them down in the prime of their life. This sadly is a course of nature too. It hardly justifies the murder of adults for other human purposes though, does it?

    “The great strength of the right-to-life movement is its seeming moral clarity. Human life is human life, and it starts when two entities—egg and sperm—become one. Period. Sorry, but it’s more complicated than that. The robe of humanity descends gradually. You never get to draw a line. There are many situations where the difference between right and wrong is a spectrum and not a single point, and many situations where context makes all the difference.”

    No, Mr. Kinsely, it really is not more complicated than that, sir. The fact that so many people are willing to define right and wrong based upon their own wants or desires without consideration to that of the unborn, and the moral relativity of the entire pro-abortion stance is why this troubled world exists only in varying shades of gray to far too many people in the world today. Even if one does not believe in a power or authority higher than one’s own self, there is indeed a cost for this kind of moral uncertainty. This culture of death “for the greater good” is the result of it.

Comments are closed.