That is a very interesting site....but the question remains concerning what indeed, constitutes a person, and thus murder. I am of the opinion that where there is no human ability to think, there is no person. From what I can see through research into the differences between our closest relatives, which are killed regularly with no uproar, and ouselves, the critical component that seperates the two is the ability to think and express as a human.
If I am incorrect in this, please point out my inaccuracy.
First, I don’t use the word “murder” in connection with abortion. Yes, it’s the taking of a human life, however, because of the fact that abortion has been elevated to the status of a “right” by the Supreme Court, those who avail themselves of that right cannot be charged with a crime. Rather than accuse expectant mothers, which only makes the argument more difficult than it has to be, I prefer to direct my complaint at the source of the “problem”, the Supreme Court, which, incidentally, is also the source of a solution.
You state an opinion, which, of course, you are entitled to do. However, I believe that more than an opinion is required. Facts are required; especially when the stakes are about a million and a half tiny corpses each year.
The question is whether the occupant of a womb is a person.
From the standpoint of biology, the occupant of a womb is a living human being from the moment of conception. Barring any interruption, natural or deliberate, it seamlessly performs all of the tasks required for it to grow and develop to the point at which it announces to the mother that it is ready to leave the womb. I’ve never seen these biological facts disputed by a qualified biological, medical, or scientific authority.
If this is the case, than how can the practice of legalized abortion be justified?
Certainly, the mere thought of killing a living, unborn, human child would be repulsive. This was understood by the founders of NARAL, the National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League. (Its name has been changes several times but the acronym stays the samne.)
Prior to its advocacy, were the terms embryo or fetus more than biological terms used by the professionals in their work? Of course not. But NARAL found them to ideal terms for the de-personalizing of the occupant of the womb. Further de-personalization was achieved by preaching that these entities lacked the qualifications for what they termed “personhood”. Since they were not yet persons, they were not entitled to any rights or protections and could be discarded much the same as yesterday’s trash.
Is there a fact here? No, there is not. What there is, however, is simply an unfounded statement, amplified and repeated until it worked its way into the politically correct lexicon of nonsensical conceptions.
Think about it. A group of advocates decides that humanity should be divided into persons and non-persons. From whence does this group derive its authority to make so profound a decision which, thus far, in the US, has resulted in the death of nearly fifty million unborn children? There is no higher power which could have conferred such authority upon it. The authority was simply usurped.
Is it within the province of politics to assign to any human the power of life or death over another human? The only way it can be done is to declare that at one point, a human is human, while at another point, a human is non-human.
There is an interesting discussion on this subject by one of the founders of NARAL.
It begins this way:
"I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968."
You may read it here:
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html
