A Philosopher's Blog

Protect Life Act

Posted in Ethics, Law, Medicine/Health, Philosophy, Politics by Michael LaBossiere on October 16, 2011
Abortion Rights banner

Image by ge'shmally via Flickr

Abortion is a matter of seemingly endless moral and political debate. In the latest round, the Republican controlled House has passed the Protect Life Act. Two of the main aspects of the act include preventing federal money from being used in health care plans that cover abortion and to allow health care workers to refuse to perform abortions. This includes cases in which an abortion is medically necessary to save a woman’s life.

The first aspect of the act seems to be at least partially a solution in search of a problem. The Affordable Care Act (known by the dysphemism “Obamacare”) already prevents public money separate from private insurance payments covering abortion. However, the is a common misconception (intentionally fueled) that “Obamacare” pays for abortions.

The act goes beyond this in an attempt to restrict coverage of abortion. The bill, if made into a law, would forbid women from buying private insurance plans including abortion coverage. This is, of course, limited to purchases made through a state health care exchange.

The main justification for this aspect of the bill is that the Republican backers claim that taxpayer dollars should not go to abortions. Of course, the bill goes beyond that and attempts to restrict women’s choices.

On the face of it, the justification has a certain appeal. After all, in a democratic (or republican) system, the taxpayers have a right to decide where their tax dollars are spent (and also to have a role in decisions in general-if only via representatives). As such, if the majority of Americans are opposed to having tax dollars go to abortion, then it would be presumably correct to not provide such funding. Majority rule and all that would serve as the moral justification. This would, of course, entail that the same principle should apply uniformly. So, for example, if the citizens did not want subsidies going to corporations or did not want to fun capital punishment, then such things should not be allowed.

In the case of abortion, most Americans hold that it should be legal. While this does not entail that they want to fund abortions, it would seem to indicate that abortion rights are accepted by the majority of Americans. As such, attempting to restrict these rights under the guise of keeping taxpayer money from funding abortion would seem to be somewhat deceptive. After all, it is one thing to prevent public money from being used and it is quite another to forbid women from buying private insurance with their own money. It is especially ironic given the Republican mantras about the free market and individual choice.

Also, if most Americans favor the legality of abortion and the Republican backers of the bill are claiming that they are right to impose restrictions based on the fact that some people are morally opposed to abortion, then it would seem to follow that anything that is morally opposed should not be funded. This would include capital punishment, war, the drug war and so on. In fact, it seems likely that very little would be left with public funding. Naturally, it could be argued that the moral opposition would need to be significant, but even under that condition capital punishment and many other things could no longer be funded with public money. Perhaps this would be a good thing-but I am reasonable sure that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would be willing to accept this a general principle.

Perhaps the most controversial component of the bill is that health care workers who morally oppose abortion will have the legal right to refuse to perform abortions-even when doing so is medically necessary to prevent the death of the woman. Currently hospitals are legally required to perform abortions when doing so is medically necessary to saving the life of the woman.  Some Catholic hospitals have been breaking the existing law for years.

On the one hand, a strong case can be made for allowing health care workers to decline performing an abortion on moral grounds. After all, a law that compels people to perform what they regard as an immoral action (such as fighting in war or paying taxes to support a war or what they regard as an unjust system) would seem to be well worth both moral and legal scrutiny. This matter has, of course, been addressed in regards to civil disobedience and the question of what a person should do when his/her conscience conflicts with the laws of the state.

In the case of non-emergency procedures, I am certainly sympathetic to the view that health care workers with strong moral beliefs should not be forced to engage in what they regard as an immoral action (most likely murder). Likewise, I am sympathetic to people who refuse to fight in war or support the state on the grounds that they regard the killing  (or murder) of human beings as immoral.

On the other hand, a strong case can be made that professionals are obligated to perform their jobs even when doing so goes against their conscience. For example, a nurse who is opposed to drug use would not seem to have the right to refuse to treat a victim of a self-inflicted drug overdose of illegal drugs. As another example, a police officer who thinks that homosexuality is an abomination would not seem to have the right to refuse to protect a homosexual who is being beaten to death.

In the case of emergency procedures, a very strong case can be made that such procedures should be performed. On utilitarian grounds, performing such procedures would seem to be right. After all, the most likely result of not performing the procedure is that the woman and the fetus both die. The procedure would at least save the life of one person, which would presumably be a good action. To use an analogy, imagine that a child has been rigged with a terrorist bomb and is running at a woman. The bomb cannot be removed in time and will detonate in seconds. A soldier or police officer is nearby and can stop the child-but only by shooting her. The woman can, of course, scream to the soldier/officer that she would rather die with her child. However, it would not seem wicked of the soldier or officer to take the shot if the woman did not forbid it.

It can, of course, be argued that this is not a utilitarian matter but a matter of the action itself being right or wrong. If it is assumed that abortion is wrong because it is killing, it would seem to follow that not helping the woman would also be wrong-after all, this would cause her death.

At this point it is natural to bring up the stock distinction between killing and letting die. In the case of the woman, the medical care provider would be letting her die rather than killing the other being (which may or may not be a person). In general, our moral intuitions tend to indicate that killing is worse than letting die, which could be taken as a point in favor of allowing health care providers to let women die rather than perform an abortion. However, since the being will also die anyway (in most cases) it would seem that refusing to save the woman would (as noted above) merely double the number of deaths rather than do something that would be morally commendable. This could even be argued on the same moral basis as triage. In this case, the act could be seen not as killing the being, but saving the mother rather than allowing two patients to die. To use an analogy, if a mother and child were brought to a hospital and both were dying and the doctor knew that her choice was between saving the mother or letting both die while she worked to futilely save the child, then the right thing to do would seem to be to save the mother. Expending pointless effort on a child that could not be saved while letting the mother die would not be noble or good. Rather it would be a wrongful decision that would kill the mother.  As such, this provision is clearly immoral.

Enhanced by Zemanta

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. T. J. Babson said, on October 16, 2011 at 10:21 am

    I am not anti-abortion, but I understand that many people regard abortion as simply wrong–like slavery–and are therefore unable to compromise. For those people, seeing their tax dollars used to perform abortions is intolerable.

    Here is their perspective:

    Today, the House of Representatives will likely be voting on H.R. 3, the Protect Life Act, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R., Pa.). This piece of legislation would prevent federal funding of abortion through Obamacare. This is important to pro-lifers because Obamacare created a number of funding streams which may result in taxpayer subsidized abortions. For instance, funds appropriated through Obamacare may subsidize health insurance plans purchased through state level exchanges which cover abortion. Additionally, Obamacare might subsidize abortion through funds appropriated for either community health centers or high-risk pools. The Protect Life Act insures that none of these funding streams would directly pay for abortions.

    During the health-care debate, the issue of abortion funding put President Obama in a very difficult position politically. Most Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion and the pro-life movement wisely raised the salience of this issue. However, President Obama realized his pro-choice allies would never support an explicit ban on federal funds to insurance plans which included abortion. As such, his solution was to sign an executive order that would purportedly ban federal funds from going to insurance policies that would fund abortion. Obamacare supporters hoped that this would purchase some political cover for pro-life Democrats and convince some Americans that Obamacare did not actually fund abortion.

    Of course, nearly all analysts, both pro-life and pro-choice agree that the executive order is close to meaningless. Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, called it a “symbolic gesture.” In the months after the passage of Obamacare, the National Right to Life Committee found that the Department of Health and Human Services agreed to fund high risk insurance plans in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Mexico all of which included abortion coverage. The outcry did prompt a policy change from the Obama administration. But the policy change was due to the outside scrutiny, not the legal weight of the executive order. Furthermore, the Obama administration vowed that this policy change “is not a precedent.” That is what makes today’s vote on H.R. 3 so important.

    Regardless of the outcome, pro-lifers should take heart. In the aftermath of the 1994 election, Congress never even voted on defunding Planned Parenthood. This year, there was an effort to remove Planned Parenthood funding from the remainder of the FY 2011 budget. Representative Cliff Stearns (R., Fla.) announced he would be holding congressional hearings on Planned Parenthood. The ban on taxpayer-funded abortions in the District of Columbia was reinstated. This May the House of Representatives passed HR 3 “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” which would codify the Hyde Amendment into public law. The increased attention that this Congress is giving to sanctity-of-life issues is evidence of the increased popularity and influence of the pro-life movement.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280003/important-pro-life-vote-michael-j-new

  2. dhammett said, on October 16, 2011 at 10:57 am

    Take heart. Herman Cain, the current front-runner for the Republican party has his 9-9-9 kind of solution to the abortion issue.On today’s MTP Herman expressed his firm opposition to abortion. Period. Even for rape and incest. Waffling a bit, he made it perfectly vague that on principle he even opposes it to save the life of the mother. But he says the “family” should make that decision in that situation.

    He wasn’t clear whether a raped woman or a victim of incest is considered “family”. But, apparently, for some reason, she would have no say in cases of rape and incest whether she’s “family” or not. So the “family” (including or not including the rape or incest victim) has certain rights when it comes to abortion, but those rights are extremely limited.

    • T. J. Babson said, on October 16, 2011 at 11:37 am

      Slippery slope, dhammett. Do you really believe that a baby born of rape or incest is more deserving to have its life terminated than other babies? And the reason is presumably because the mother doesn’t want the baby? So are you OK with babies being aborted because they are girls as is happening in China?

      • dhammett said, on October 16, 2011 at 1:50 pm

        If you want to take this to China, where the government ^requires^ abortion, go ahead, but let’s first reflect on the current state of governmental involvement in the process in this country. I believe Roe v Wade does ^NOT require^ an individual to have OR not have an abortion (of any fetus, male or female). The only forces in the US who want to force their will on others in the US would seem to be the “pro-lifers” like Herman who say you CAIN’t have an abortion .

        Let’s leave China and take this to another ‘place’ for a moment.
        Let’s say you’ve been raped, TJ. You were probably “asking for it”. but that’s neither here nor there. So. You’ve read the risks involved with pregnancies. Perhaps you foresee some of your current physical problems adding to those risks.For example, you are taking legal prescription drugs for one or more serious physical conditions, and you’ve read that they could cause complications that cause birth defects. But you can’t abort because Herman Cain and others say you can’t. Then one of the expected problems does arise and the fetus is seriously harmed. It’s born with serious brain damage. From the beginning, you haven’t wanted to undertake the responsibility of a newborn. The great additional fiscal and emotional burden are much more than you can realistically bear, given you financial position in life. And, after all, you were raped. . . presumably against your will. So you put it up for adoption. A gay couple adopts your child.

        In the end, you have, for all intents and purposes , been a surrogate mother (carried a rapis’ts child) for another couple without getting any of the financial benefits. And as kickers you’ve been raped, and you’ve taken on the risks of pregnancy, and you’ve helped a gay couple. You make me proud.

      • dhammett said, on October 16, 2011 at 2:32 pm

        Here’s how the (voluntary) surrogate mother might be compensated:

        http://www.creatingfamilies.com/SM/SM_Info.aspx?Type=123

        Any proposed laws against rape victims choosing to have abortions should provide compensation and medical assistance at least equivalent to that represented in the above url, and, in addition, it should provide physical damage and emotional distress as determined by a jury.

        And, while we’re at it, let’s separate this from the issue of birth under “normal” conditions. Rape, incest, and the issues concerning the life of the mother, rare or frequent, are not “normal” conditions .Also, they’re not, I believe, currently considered emergency conditions that can be quickly dealt with as the need arises. Thus, they should not be lumped together with “abortion on demand”, which, as I see it, is something different. Of course, I’m not the GODfather Pizza man.

  3. ajmacdonaldjr said, on October 16, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    Mike, your arguments regarding “emergency situations” are red herrings, since these situations are very rare and are not what we are discussing, which is “abortion on demand”; meaning “for any reason whatsoever”. The rare emergency situation can be remedied by means other than abortion, such as by cesarian section, and is not what is occurring in abortion clinics at all. These emergency situations are encountered in hospitals. Not in the free standing, unregulated clinics Roe v Wade gave us in 1973. Abortion on demand is, and always has been, used as an inhumane and cruel method of “birth control”.

    You say: “In the case of abortion, most Americans hold that it should be legal” but you provide no evidence for this assertion.

    “A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.” This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.”

    See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

    Even if most Americans DID support abortion this would NOT mean that abortion on demand is the right thing to do. Right? We don’t, or we shouldn’t, put moral issues, especially involving the intentional, violent destruction of a human being, up for a vote, should we? Your a philosopher, so you tell me. If dismembering babies is wrong, which it is, then it should be outlawed. Period. Justice demands this, and not a popular majority vote.

    I agree with you concerning the immorality involved with using our tax monies to fund the other state sponsored human killing projects: war, capital punishment, euthanasia, and the failed war on drugs, and you are correct that abortion on demand certainly fits into this murderous category.

    If you think about it, abortion transcends all other categories of man’s hatred toward his fellow man. The yet-to-be-born child in her mother’s womb isn’t murdered because she’s a particular race, or religion, or of any particular political persuasion; she’s murdered simply because she exists. This is an existential hatred of her very being, her existence. She exists, in the world, healthy, growing, within her mother’s womb, and someone simply doesn’t want her to exist any longer. They want to kill her before she grows any bigger or any older. She is an unwanted (human) being.

    What a horror for anyone to support such brutality.

    Abortion, in microcosm, is the death of humanity as a whole.

    Perhaps you’re familiar with Peter Singer? Who advocates infanticide up to two years of age? Because fetuses and infants are not, in his thinking, persons?

    The mind, it is said, is never harder at work than when it is trying to justify sin; or, in this case: man’s inhumanity toward his fellow man.

  4. dhammett said, on October 16, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    Perhaps the author of the Gallup comment could have used the following data, which is quite easily found on Google. It’s more comprehensive presenting many more recent polls, from many sources.The Gallup summary contained in the url below runs from 2001-2011. And in the other polls referenced there where questions related to which abortions should be considered legal or illegal, Americans– quite wisely in my opinion–rarely move above the 20% line in either the “legal in all cases” or the “illegal in all cases” categories.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

    They’re only polls. But apparently most of the polls contained in the polling report summary demonstrate that most Americans don’t feel that Herman Cain’s (and others’) absolute views on abortion are humane for the human adults involved—that is the people who would be giving birth

    If I believe what I write in my 1:50 and 2:32 posts above, and I do, those beliefs in no way indicate that I, or others who may agree with me, advocate infanticide for two-year-olds or governmental determination of which sexes should be aborted.

  5. ajmacdonaldjr said, on October 17, 2011 at 7:19 am

    There’s no valid intellectual debate concerning this issue, logically, morally, or legally.

    Abortion on demand is the violent, intentional, destruction of an innocent human life.

    People who choose to believe abortion is “okay” are simply asserting a “might makes right” or “will to power” theory of power, which is not justice at all. Justice is based upon natural law, and not power and the will.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” ~ Declaration of Independence

    Life-at-Fertilization Initiative Has Hope In Miss. – Yes, Life Begins at Fertilization http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/17/life-at-fertilization-initiative-has-hope-in-miss/ via @foxnews

    “Any victory at the state level would likely be short-lived since a life-at-fertilization amendment would conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Leaders of the movement say their ultimate goal is to provoke a court fight to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established a legal right to abortion.”

    Life Begins at Fertilization

    The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:

    “Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”

    [England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

    “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

    “Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”

    [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

    “Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”

    [Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

    “Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”

    [Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]”Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term ’embryo’ is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy.”

    [Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

    “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

    [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

    “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”

    [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

    “I would say that among most scientists, the word ’embryo’ includes the time from after fertilization…”

    [Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel — Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]

    “The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

    [Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

    “The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum…. But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down.”

    [Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel — Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]

    “Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”

    [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

    “The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”

    [Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

    “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”

    [O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}]

    “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”

    [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

    “[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization….
    “[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo….

    “I’ll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.

    “The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena — where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation — as well as in the confines of a doctor’s office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. ‘Don’t worry,’ a doctor might say, ‘it’s only pre-embryos that we’re manipulating or freezing. They won’t turn into real human embryos until after we’ve put them back into your body.'”

    [Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

    See: http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

    “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.  Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.”  ~ Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece

    “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.” ~ The “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

    “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” ~ Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

    According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte.  From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species).  Non-living things do not do these things. 

    Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

    Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human.  A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens.  Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg).  When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing.  Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not.  Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.

    In Roe vs. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun noted, “The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development.  If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (Fourteenth) Amendment.” 

    According to Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, a person is “a human being.”  Attempts to render an entire class of human beings as “non-persons” based upon arbitrary qualities such as age and place of residence in order to discriminate against them is immoral and unjust. 

    As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in 1857 ruled that Dred Scott, a black slave, was not a “person” with rights but the “property” of his master.  Was the Court wrong then?  Of course!  The Supreme Court of 1973 that legalized abortion nationwide with its Roe v. Wade decision was just as immoral and unjust.  They dehumanized an entire class of human beings in order to legitimize wholesale discrimination against them.  Abortion may go down in history as the greatest human rights abuse of all time.

    As our nation’s founding documents make clear, the right to life is God-given and inalienable.  The right to live cannot be legitimately usurped by men.  No man, no government has the right to deprive one of life or liberty without a trial by jury, regardless of skin color, age, stage of development, level of dependence upon others for survival, or place of residence. 

    Abortion results in the death of an innocent human being.  It is immoral and unjust when evaluated in the light of the law of the land (our founding documents) and the divine commandment that forbids taking the life of an innocent human being.

    See: http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

    As Dr. King pointed out, many years ago, quoting St. Augustine, “an unjust law is no law at all.” A positive law that violates the natural law and the moral laws of the universe is no law at all. Positive law—the laws passed by legislatures and decided by court decisions—must uphold natural law in order to be valid.

    See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62966380/Philosophy-and-Plan-of-Action-The-Summer-of-Justice-2012-DC


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: