Response to Kristen Part 2

Kristen responded again and I wanted to give my response more visibility. As always, her comments are in quote marks and my responses are bolded...

Kristen,

Once again, thank you for your thoughts. As before, they are well articulated arguments, without attacking the people that disagree with you. I appreciate that about you. On the matter of contraception, I've already responded to that, so I'll move on to your other arguments.

"I think pro-choice people get a bad rap in the pro-life community for being pro-abortion. Who is pro-abortion? You have to be (in my opinion) a total whacko to think that having to come to an abortion clinic and terminate a fetus is one of life's little pleasures."

On "pro-choice" versus "pro-abortion," I don't know of any pro-lifers that actually think women walk into abortion clinics whistling "Dixie." The issue that divides us is not that you are pro-choice and I am anti-choice. Truth is, I am vigorously "pro-choice" when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. I support a woman’s right to choose her own health care provider, to choose her own school, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, to choose her own religion, and to choose her own career, to name a few. These are among the many choices that I fully support for the women of our country. But some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves. No, we shouldn’t be allowed to choose that.

"The thing is, it's a terrible hardship to have to decide. That's the basis of being pro-choice-- to have the FREEDOM (yeah, I live in America and I want to express every freedom I have)and peace of mind to make the right choice for myself if I'm considering an abortion."

On the issue of freedom, I disagree with your premise. We simply do not have the freedom to do whatever we want in America. Obvious things like mass murder, rape, grand theft auto, etc. are things we can decide to do but we have to be willing to pay the consequences. Yes, abortion is legal right now, thus there are no criminal penalties for it, but that hasn't always been the way. This isn't the first time in history that America has legalized something wrong. (Slavery would be an obvious example.)

"These women go through hell to make the decisions they make. Why not trust them?"

Every single law we make is intended to take decision making ability from someone. The truth is that all human beings are capable of making immoral decisions, particularly in a time of crisis. Laws are needed to protect other innocent human beings from having those decisions inflicted upon them. If I am right, and abortion is the killing of an innocent person, then women should not have the right to make that decision. If I'm wrong, and the unborn are just "blobs of non-human tissue," then the woman's lifestyle preferences should take precedence. The burden of proof rests on you to prove that the unborn are not human persons. You can't say that we don't know if the unborn are persons or not because if we can't know for sure, then the benefit of the doubt should go to life. (For example, what would we think of a structural engineer that decided to blow up a building without making absolutely sure there wasn't anybody inside?) That's why the entire abortion debate comes down to personhood.

"Also, I've been browsing the site and saw something that shocked me. There's a link for "church resources." OK, I realize that this is JUST a website, but that's kind of a tip-off to me that religious beliefs are weighing in on these decisions. Whether I'm a Christian or not doesn't matter-- I don't want someone else imposing their religious beliefs in my healthcare!"

I think it would help if you took a look at the articles on the website. The question of personhood can be decided with science and philosophy, not just Bible verse quotations. I don't just think abortion is wrong because the Bible says so. I'm also not solely pro-life because abortion pictures are ugly. I’m pro-life because I know that the unborn is alive, because the baby is growing; I know that the unborn is human because the baby has two human parents, and I think that innocent human persons should be protected. Period. Georgia Right to Life is a faith-based non-sectarian organization. Of course our faith has something to do with our beliefs. The church resources on the Human Life Amendment website will be for pro-life activists
that want to also activate people in their church. Planned Parenthood is involved with a group called the "Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice" and they have a page on their website with resources to organize their pro-choice activism in their churches. Is that wrong? If not, then why is it only wrong for pro-lifers to activate those in their church that care enough about the issue to be involved?

Response to Kristen

We had another comment from the other side that I wanted to respond to in a new post to give both her thoughts and my responses more visibility. Her comments are in quote marks and my responses are bolded...

Kristen said...
"As a college student in Georgia, I have concerns regarding the amendment- particularly how it relates to contraception.

Your website details that "...genuine contraception is the prevention of life." (in the "Responses to Common Objections" section) No argument here. BUT the medical definition of pregnancy begins at the point when the egg is implanted in the uterine wall. This poses quite a problem if your definition of "personhood" begins at the moment of fertilization, which occurs before implantation. The kind of birth control I use (the pill) is hormonal and used to prevent the egg from implanting in the uterus.

If this is the case, how can you speculate that my birth control (and many other common forms of contraception other than the pill that rely on hormones) wouldn't be banned? Seeing that this contraception would interfere with your definition of "personhood" in that it would prevent the fertilized (and therefore, in your terms) "person" from implanting, how could it NOT be illegal?

My fear is that not only will Georgia women be stripped of their constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, they will also be stripped of most common forms of birth control that would in turn prevent them from having an unintended pregnancy in the first place. Pretty scary, huh?"

Hi, Kristen.

Thank you for taking the time to comment, and for writing such a thoughtful objection. I know that one of Planned Parenthood's main arguments against this amendment is that it is "an attempt to ban certain forms of birth control." I also know that this is not true and Planned Parenthood is spreading this misinformation to mislead and cloud the real issue. The real issue is the dignity of all human life whether that life is a days-old embryo or a disabled veteran, or an elderly citizen. We feel that the best way to affirm that dignity is through a constitutional amendment.

While Georgia Right to Life does oppose the forms of birth control that cause chemical abortions (abortifacients), this amendment of itself will have no effect on any type of birth control.

Constitutional amendments are not legislation. We think it's very important to be honest about what this amendment does, and more importantly, what it does not do. If this amendment is passed, (which requires a two-thirds vote from both sides of the legislature, and a majority vote from the citizens of Georgia) there would be no immediate impact on birth control, or abortion for that matter!

The day after the amendment passed, abortion clinics all over the state would still be in business. You would still be able to get your birth control. Constitutional amendments are made to be broad in scope, so that if passed, legislators can later attempt to pass bills to enforce the part of the amendment they want to enforce, or think they could enforce constitutionally.

As one who studies the statistics of abortion, I believe that if the people of Georgia can barely decide if they want a barbaric procedure like abortion to be legal or not, there is no reason to believe that the same people would decide to ban abortifacients. According to the polls, over 90% of the country believes that there should be full access to birth control. Birth control was made legal before Roe v. Wade, and there is no reason to think that it would be made illegal if the Human Life Amendment were passed, or even if Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Response to "Anonymous"

We had a comment from the other side that I wanted to respond to in a new post to give both her thoughts and my responses more visibility. Her comments are in quote marks and my responses are bolded...

"Interesting - only 2 comments. Perhaps the blog author is not publishing any comment that disagrees with his view."

Absolutely not. This blog just hasn't received very much attention yet - nor has the Personhood website as far as I know. These are both very new websites, so I'm hoping for more interaction, from both sides, in the future. I definitely welcome you to our blog and hope this won't be the last time you comment.

"The opposing view to anti-abortion is not pro-abortion. It is pro-choice, meaning if you don't want to have an abortion, you don't have to."

On the other hand, "anti-abortionists" prefer to be called "pro-life." My problem with the term "pro-choice" is I think it's easily misunderstood. Let me be clear: The issue that divides us is not that you are pro-choice and I am anti-choice. Truth is, I am vigorously "pro-choice" when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. I support a woman’s right to choose her own health care provider, to choose her own school, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, to choose her own religion, and to choose her own career, to name a few. These are among the many choices that I fully support for the women of our country. But some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves. No, we shouldn’t be allowed to choose that.

So, again, the issue that separates you and I is not that you are pro-choice and I am anti-choice. The issue the divides us is just one question: What is the unborn?

Put simply, if the unborn is a human person, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human person, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human persons, killing them through elective abortion requires no more justification than having your tooth pulled.

"Why do you get to decide when life begins? What if my religious belief states that life begins when the organism is viable outside the womb, or at birth, or as the Catholics beleive at the quickening?"

I don't decide when life begins, and neither do religions. While it is true that many religions disagree on when a valuable person has begun, I don't that is important. A lack of consensus does not mean that there is a lack of truth. (for example, the consensus used to be that the Earth was flat.) I think when life biologically begins is a scientific question, and should be left to the scientists to declare – not religions. By the way, the scientific community has spoken on that issue. Pick up any embryology textbook and you will find they all say the same thing: life beings at fertilization. (or conception.) Even Dr. Alan Guttmacher, the former president of Planned Parenthood wrote in his book on fetal development that life begins at conception, and was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would not know this. “This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge.” (Source: Life in the Making, Viking Press, 1933.)

"Should I be able to make choices for you? What if I were the decider and said all people who cannot emotionally or financally support a child must terminate the pregancy? Is that any more intrusive or ridiculous than deciding the opposite for me?"

Yes, that would be more intrusive. If my science and philosophy is correct, that the unborn are living human persons, then it is less intrusive to decide that these persons have the right to life stated in the 14th amendment. Your example of forcing poor mom’s to kill their unborn babies would be devastatingly more intrusive.

“If life begins at conception, why don't we have funerals when people miscarry?”

First, the topic of miscarriage brings up an interesting question: When a woman has a miscarriage, does she not deliver a dead fetus? If so, then what was it before it was dead? Can you have a dead something that wasn’t previously alive before it died?

Secondly, it's true, a mother may not mourn a miscarriage the way she mourns a lost child. It also may be true that Jews do not feel the same sense of loss over six million abortions as they feel over the death of the same number of their kinsmen. But this by itself tells us nothing about the innate worth of either.

I’ve heard other “pro-choicers” argue that the fact that miscarriages happen prove that abortion is permissible, because after all, abortions happen naturally sometimes. (I know you didn’t specifically say this, I just wanted to bring it up while we’re talking about miscarriage.) The answer to this is that just because some things happen naturally does not necessarily mean they should be done on purpose. For example, the infant mortality rate is very high in some third-world countries, but that wouldn’t justify infanticide. Another example is that just because earthquakes devastate cities wouldn’t justify anyone in purposefully destroying a city.

Just some food for thought. Thanks for your comments and I hope to continue this discussion with you!

Administrative Note

We have created this blog to invite discussion from both sides of this issue. Posts will be moderated to prevent profanity only. In other words, when you publish a post, we'll have to approve it first. If your post does not include profanity or any other inappropriate content, I will approve it immediately. We will NOT censor posts we disagree with. The new posts will be read and approved at least once a day.

Welcome to the Personhood Blog

As we discuss the possibility of overturning Roe vs. Wade, we must remember that the foundational question is not primarily a question of a woman’s right to privacy, control over her own body or even her material well-being. We would agree that she has those rights within the limits established by our laws. Additionally, we would assert that it is not about various methods of birth control or the imposition of some outdated morality. Correctly viewed, it is, by it’s very nature . . . a civil rights question.

You and I are human beings. A human being is simply a living organism of the species Homo sapiens. All human beings in the U.S. have certain inalienable rights that are recognized and protected by the State . . . the highest of these is the paramount right to life. Without this basic right to live, all other rights are moot, including a woman’s right to choose. The courts agree with this reasoning and have established this to be the law. Hence, in Georgia, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act prosecutes an individual for TWO counts of murder whenever a pregnant woman and her fetus dies from a criminal act.

I highly recommend, Prof. Charles Lugosi’s thesis entitled, Conforming to the rule of law: when person and human being finally mean the same thing in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. In it he has pointed out that once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live. Some argue that humanity doesn’t matter, but how can one’s humanity be irrelevant to the question of whether someone has the right to kill him? Wasn’t the black person’s humanity relevant to the issue of slavery, or the Jew’s humanity relevant to the ethics of the Holocaust? Not only is the unborn’s humanity relevant, it is the single most relevant issue in the whole abortion debate.

A human being is also a person, but unfortunately, an unborn human being is not considered a “person” in the eyes of the Supreme Court until it is born. The 14^th Amendment clearly affords the full protection of the State to all “Persons”, hence if a fetus were a “person” abortion would then become unthinkable, as would many of the current operations being performed on living, growing human beings, the end of which, is their death and disposal. Justice Blackmum, writing the majority opinion in Roe vs. Wade in 1973 said this, “(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14^th] Amendment.” Thus, the personhood of the preborn child is the single point on which the entire debate turns.

Dr. Lugosi went on to say, “It would behoove us to remember that there was once a time when human slavery was legal. The segregationists of the 1800’s argued that certain classes of humans beings were not persons and that they had no constitutional rights to life or liberty.” The Supreme Court agreed. Dehumanizing, derogatory or clinical language was used to depict this caste of non-persons as property . . . property to be disposed of at the will of the owner. The segregationists complained that the abolitionists were trying to impose their morality upon others. Huge financial profits were derived from the backs of those that the Court had determined to be only three-fifths of a person in the eyes of the law.

Today we have substituted age, size, gender and physical location as the grounds for the legal and institutional discrimination of unborn humans. Today’s segregationists center their argument on choice and thereby escape the glaring lapse of morality that occurs when one human enslaves or kills another for it own benefit. In order to advance their “quality of life” agenda, today’s segregationists promote abortion, cloning and the destruction of living human embryos.

Lugosi concludes, “Must we be reminded that it was not Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation proclamation which freed the slaves, but rather, the waging of a great Civil War. Civil unrest, political party polarization, .court battles, violence against abortionists, RICO charges, restriction on free speech and a nation that is deeply divided on the issue all point to the inescapable conclusion that we are engaged in just such a war.”

The opening battle of this national conflict was waged by a local woman, Sandra Cano of Doe vs. Bolton, 1973. These battles have continued to rage for over 34 years. It is only fitting that the last battle, the Personhood Amendment, may actually be fought right here in Georgia. Let’s let the people of Georgia decide the outcome.

Dan Becker
V.P. Georgia Right to Life