Maybe I’m sheltered, but I never heard that expression called ‘Christian’ before. So this was a bit of a first for me:
The law added a strict Christian construct to the preamble of the Missouri constitution — that life begins at conception and therefore unborn children have protectable rights.
Instead of going into a list of medical professionals willing to profess that human life makes its beginnings at the moment of conception (and I could), I have a question instead.
When does it begin, then? If it is not conception, when is it? At birth? Whose birth? The child born at 40 weeks gestational age has more rights, then, than a child of 40 weeks not yet born. And what do we then make of premature children? Is it at the age of viability? Does the definition of life then change depending on how advanced medical technology is? Should not something like when life begins be unwavering and unshakeable?
Okay, so that was more than one question.
The 11 pm update: When asked, “When DOES life begin, then? Scientifically speaking, of course,” (in the comments section) there was no actual answer.
There was this:
…is abortion really murder if the women is never charged with murder?
Let’s acknowledge the life in front of us, instead of the debatable “life” which we cannot agree is a murder victim.
So apparently, nothing is wrong unless it’s a crime. Abortion, therefore, was wrong only when it was illegal. Try to get a pro-choicer to agree to that one!
Andrea adds: There are avenues of questioning that pro-abortion people are completely unwilling to address. They pretend the question of when life begins can’t be answered, or that the answer is personal. But medical textbooks, too bad for them, are fond of that pro-life myth that new life begins at conception. Now the disturbing thing of course is that pro-abortion people are beginning to address this. The new response: Yes, we know it’s a child. But we don’t care.
Rebecca adds: “…is abortion really murder if the women is never charged with murder?”
As Jonah Goldberg brilliantly pointed out in Liberal Fascism, the left, which is where most most pro-choicers fall, is characterized by a creeping totalitarianism which wants everything bad to be criminalized and everything good to be mandatory. To someone so inclined, morality outside the law doesn’t exist – so if it’s not illegal, of course it’s not wrong!
A Jew living under Antiochus, or a Christian in pre-Constantine Rome, would not have been at all surprised at the idea that something could be both legal and abominable. One of the pitfalls of living in a civilized country that is an heir to the Judeo-Christian tradition is that it is easy for us to forget how barbaric life can be in the absence of these influences. Are honour killings immoral? They are de facto legal in Jordan, where the authorities winkingly impose minimal sentences in cases where they involve themselves at all. How about honour killings in Canada? Or was Aqsa Parvez’ father just exercising his right to choose?