By Luke C. Gabello, Co-Founder of The Conservative Comeback
Malori Fuchs, Editor
When I am asked my position on abortion, I reply, “I am pro-life.” That was a sufficient answer until recently. It is now common to hear, “No, you are anti-choice.” Really? Many pro-choice supporters go even further by rationalizing being pro-choice as separate from being pro-abortion. The argument is phrased something similar to, “No, I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. I am not saying I am in favor of abortion, I am saying that I believe it is up to the woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion.” This argument is much more clever and far more dangerous.
The problem with being “pro-choice” is that it is still “pro-abortion” wrapped in intellectual drivel. One cannot simply support abortion as a choice without co-conspiring to support the legalized means required to kill an innocent child. Pro-choice proponents argue that choice in this matter is a basic freedom and a right. Examine some of our true freedoms and rights and the fallacy of the “pro-choice” position is exposed. The Conservative Comeback is a big proponent of freedom: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the freedom to bear arms for self defense. We are not, however, in favor of the right for the government to impose a religion on all citizens, for libel and slander, or for using firearms to commit crimes. There are legitimate and illegitimate uses of our rights as defined in the Constitution of the United States. The fundamental problem illustrated is that no right is allowed to infringe on the right of another. To do so jeopardizes all of our rights and freedoms.
The pro-choice position garners support from an extremely flawed constitutional interpretation: the supposed belief that there is “a right to privacy.” The word “privacy” does not even exist in the Constitution of the United States. The word “privilege” and “deprived” appear most frequently in the Constitution of the United States when searching for “priv”. Neither the word “privilege” nor “deprived” suppose privacy in any sense that would advocate murder. It again goes back to the fundamentally flawed thinking that an unborn child is not a human. This is the justification by which most individuals hold their pro-choice beliefs. Therefore, I argue that an unborn human being is blatantly deprived of their natural choice to live in favor of a supposed right to privacy.
A unique human being is created at the moment of conception. The moment of conception to the moment birth is an inseparable part of the human experience. Here is the evidence for all the naysayers: one cannot bypass conception and suddenly become a human. If we as a nation believe it is wrong to harm the innocent, then abortion on all levels must cease immediately. As President Ronald Reagan so eloquently stated, “Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You need to re-read the Constitution. More specifically, the Bill of Rights. More specifically, the Fourth Amendment.
ReplyDeleteYou're not really in favor of "freedom of religion" when the idea of "life" that you want to impose on the rest of the country is straight out of religious doctrines. You are, in a sense, imposing a state religion when you demand that non-Catholics like myself must follow the Pope's ideas about sexual morality. I'm not Catholic (unless being baptized by a priest counts, but I was raised Protestant and am now agnostic), so the Pope's or even the Bible's stance on birth control, abortion, abstinence, etc. is irrelevant to me. Being told that I need to do this or that because it's what God wants - arguments you make elsewhere on your blog - is a violation of my First Amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteIf you truly believed in freedom of religion, you'd leave God and Christianity out of any discussion about the legality of abortion, because you'd realize it was irrelevant in a country with a "wall of separation" (to quote Thomas Jefferson) between church and state, where what "God" wants and the dictates of any religion(s) should have no influence on lawmaking.
Also, I'm curious as to why you removed every pro-choice comment on your site. I know some of them were mean-spirited and some were just outright trolling, but you removed the more reasonable ones as well and the impression it gives is that you just want an echo chamber, not legitimate debate.
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I did not remove every pro-abortion comment on my site. I don't remember the exact content of every single comment that I deleted (and you're right, some of them WERE very nasty!), but it seemed that all of them MIGHT be from the same person and it wasn't worth my time to answer every little problem they had with my posts. (I do wish that commenters would state at least their first name!) However, I don't wish to portray that I'm not open to legitimate debate, because I am open to debate and this is not the first time I'm diving into something like this.
Luke Gabello, who wrote the article (I just edited it for grammatical things and clarity), was a political science major at a university in New York state (a liberal one, at that, so the tactic of "well, he went to a Catholic or conservative college" cannot be used against him)...so he would be better fit to answer your constitutional questions. At this very moment I don't have much time to reply to your queries, but I will say this: are you implying that the 4th Amendment guarantees the right to an abortion, and if yes, how so? I am interested in hearing your response.
For the record I did mention God or Religion in the article I wrote other than we have freedom of religion. I used that freedom along with others as examples of how government abuses of power can happen. I did not, however, us religion as a supporting factor of my position. Please read the article again.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson did indeed mention the notion of a "separation of church and state". Regardless, this is not in the Constitution of the United States. The saying goes, "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion." We are all entitled to our beliefs, religious or not. I believe the unborn also have that distinct right.
I would like to hear your viewpoints on why one should have to listen to non-religious beliefs versus religious ones. I for one believe in hearing both and support the freedom to state both. What I find disheartening is that those who think religion is a problem have no qualms discriminating against religious viewpoints.
It is clear from the Constitution of the United States that the government shall not establish a state religion. I have no arguments with that and would fight to the death to support that. Like the colonists, I do not want to be a member of the Church of England. That does not preclude me from believing in God or from holding religious values.
Something to ponder for those who are against laws they believe are based on religion: every and all laws ever passed have moral implications. Please think about this before you respond to this post. Everyone's belief system, whether it is professed in religion, professed as common sense,or manifested in the complete rejection of God, has a moral implication. We as humans cannot remove our humanity.
I would prefer that the comment about the fourth amendment be clarified with specific details. Please to do not cut and paste the U.S. Supreme Court findings. Roe v. Wade was decided on a 5-4 vote. If you post the U.S. Supreme Court findings in favor of abortion, I will simply post the dissent as a response.
Here is the fourth amendment and my specific comments:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Where is right to privacy mentioned? It is contrived at best. The basic premise of this amendment is against unreasonable searches and seizures: this does not suppose privacy in any sense that would forfeit a life. In fact, this has to do historically with property protection from the government: from the government banging down my door without a warrant and seizing possesions without due process. One will note the behavior of the British during the period before the Revolutionary War. This is what we were protecting against. We were protecting all individuals from having their homes and possessions unduly violated.
The bottom line is that being pro-life does not have to be part of religion. It is true that many people who are pro-life are often quite religious. That is their right; however, it doesn't invalidate their point any more than when a point is made by an atheist. Furthermore, I also believe murder should still be illegal as an atheist understands it, even if it has religious undertones historically (e.g. The 5th Commandment). My main point here is that we can agree on matters despite having different reasons for supporting them.
Luke C. Gabello, Co-Founder of the Conservative Comeback
When they make the claim that they are pro-choice but are personally against abortion, want to reduce the amount of abortions, wouldn't have one themselves, or are not pro-abortion, they should be asked why they are opposed to abortion. Also, they could be asked, then you are against the destruction of an unborn baby but it's OK if someone else does it. Are you against murder but it's fine if someone else does it? Are you against bank robbery but it's fine if someone else commits one?
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that they must admit something is wrong with abortion if they are not pro-abortion. Also, when someone goes on and on about the relationship between abortion and religion, it is just another distraction from the main issue - What is it that is being killed in the womb?
Thank you, Luke and Monte! Both have excellent points and I appreciate your support and insights. :)
ReplyDeleteMonte, it was great meeting you at the March for Life...the Students for Life Conference was amazing and the Conservative Comeback was able to gain lots of young people interested in joining our cause! God is good. :)
Blessings!
Malori
"I would like to hear your viewpoints on why one should have to listen to non-religious beliefs versus religious ones. I for one believe in hearing both and support the freedom to state both. What I find disheartening is that those who think religion is a problem have no qualms discriminating against religious viewpoints."
ReplyDeleteI am not quite sure how, by asserting that I would prefer that the laws of the United States not be based on Christian doctrine and that to do so would be unconstitutional, I am "discriminating against religious viewpoints." I think there is a distinct difference between holding your own religious viewpoints, and insisting those be forced on others who do not share their opinions.
As for the "rights of the unborn," in order to preserve their "rights" you would be taking away the bodily autonomy of other people, of the pregnant women in question. If the government insisted on seizing your bodily fluids in a non-fatal way to keep another person alive with them, would you be okay with this invasion of your bodily autonomy in order to "protect life"? A pregnant woman does not necessarily consent to her body being used to house a baby either. (And I'm not sure if you're making this argument, but Malori has repeatedly made arguments against birth control, which negates the "she should have protected herself" argument. She uses her religious beliefs to defend the idea that "birth control" is wrong; banning something based on the dictates of religion would be a clear infringement of the separation of church and state.)
That is not even to explore the fact that banning abortion has done very little to actually decrease abortion rates and abortions clearly go on in countries where they're made illegal; legalizing abortion does not increase abortions, so much as make them safer. In essence, defending the "rights of the unborn" will always involve an infringement upon another person's rights, that of the pregnant woman in question. And while the definition of when "life begins" is one that has no clear answer, and upon which reasonable minds can disagree up until the point of birth, no one would debate the fact that a pregnant woman is very much alive.
"I would prefer that the comment about the fourth amendment be clarified with specific details. Please to do not cut and paste the U.S. Supreme Court findings. Roe v. Wade was decided on a 5-4 vote. If you post the U.S. Supreme Court findings in favor of abortion, I will simply post the dissent as a response."
ReplyDeleteRegardless of how narrow the vote was, the fact of the matter is that by ruling on it that argument therefore that argument has legal precedent. The narrow vote does not make it invalid. A number of 5-4 votes have also favored the conservative side as well, Bush v. Gore being a notable example.
Is the term "pro-life" misleading? How many pro-life people believe in the death penalty? How many scream for invasion and war against our "enemies?" How many pro-life people who work like crazy to force someone to refrain from having an abortion lift one finger to help women once they have chosen to go through with the pregnancy and keep the baby? I think anyone who acts like that is lying by calling herself "pro-life."
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Luke and Malori, your post evidences a complete lack of understanding of our Constitution and the effect of precedent with Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court has used the phrase "right to privacy" when deciding cases about it. Their decisions actually define what the Constitution means, and so, when they use a phrase like that in making a decision, it becomes what the Constitutional term means, and thus becomes part of the Constitution. Perhaps, if you had a legal background (which it is clear that you do not, based on the simplistic arguments you make), you would know this.
The term “pro-life” is not misleading. For the record I am against the death penalty. I am not pro-war and I subscribe to “Just War Theory.” The definition of “Just War Theory” can be found here: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ that I have a complete lack of constitutional understanding. I will also repeat that the term “right to privacy” is not found in the Constitution of the United States. I do agree that it has been used by the Supreme Court. That does not mean they are correct. I do not see in the Federalist Papers or any other foundational writings where the intention of the Supreme Court was to legislate law from the bench. I argue that Roe v. Wade was victim to judicial legislation. The Founding Fathers did however provide for an amendment process to change the Constitution of the United States. This is the mechanism intended by the creators to alter interpretation. To contrive the “right to privacy” from the fourth amendment is absurd.
The Supreme Court has also changed its mind in later years. One such example is the 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentucky which was later overturned by the decision in the 2005 Roper v. Simmons case.
Given that the Supreme Court has changed its mind in the past it is reasonable to state that they do not always interpret the Constitution of the United States correctly. I maintain this to be the case in Roe v. Wade.
I would also like to address the statement that individuals who are pro-life do not care for the new born child. The following organizations created, funded, and staffed by pro-life individuals counter that statement:
1. Mercy Residential Services, Inc: Melita House, Families First, and Catherine McAuley apartments
2. Various Problem Pregnancy Centers: http://www.ppcoxford.com/, http://www.rochesterwomenscare.com/
3. Adoption assistance: http://www.fund-adoption.org/Home.asp
The above list is a very small list of the numerous pro-life agencies dedicated to helping both the mother and the child (during and after pregnancy).
Luke C. Gabello, Co-Founder of the Conservative Comeback
Please be constructive with your argument rather than attacking the a person. If you have a legal background you are well aware that an ad hominem attack does not make for a cogent argument.
Thanks Malori. It was great meeting you in DC and seeing all the great pro-life youth groups. The key to the movement is the youth in this country. Thanks for all you do. If you want me to post anything (video or written) please let me know, and possibly I can do something with it on my site.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteThis debate can be reconciled by focusing on the key issue at hand: what is the unborn? You contend that the question of "when life begins" is unclear. However, according to science, the answer is quite clear. I encourage you to check out any embryology textbook from a medical library (I found one at the Johns Hopkins medical library) and you can see for yourself where it states that life begins at fertilization, also known as conception. When the male sperm meets the female ovum, they are no longer two separate entities: it is a complete human being, and everything needed to grow and develop is present. What is termed scientifically as an "embryo" is nothing short of a human being. It is biologically impossible for it to be anything else! I am the same human being that I was when I was an embryo, a "fetus" (which, by the way, is Latin for "offspring"...in this case, a human offspring), a born infant, a toddler, a pre-teen, a teenager, etc. I can never be anyone or anything else but me, a human! Science is clearly on the pro-life side.
Secondly, I think we can both agree that killing innocent human beings is wrong. This is the Natural Law, which means that each human being knows it inherently.
Finally, what does abortion do? Some people may refer to abortion as "ending a pregnancy." The Planned Parenthood website, under their descriptions of the different abortion procedures, describes it as "emptying your uterus." Emptying the uterus of what? It has the be the embryo or fetus that has been developing since fertilization. What happens to the embryo or fetus that is being emptied? The development is stopped, which means the life is stopped intentionally...in frank terms, baby killing.
So, if the unborn in the uterus of a woman is a human, and killing is wrong, and abortion is killing....then wouldn't that make abortion wrong? Yes, the circumstances (fetal defects, the mother doesn't want or can't afford a baby, etc.) are hard, but that does NOT change the human-ness of the unborn baby. It does not change the fact that abortion takes the life of an innocent human life. It can be rightly stated that babies are discriminated against because of their place of residence: the womb. They are protected if they are outside the womb, but we need to protect them in both places.
Just for the record, I was able to defend my pro-life position without any reference to my Catholic faith or God Himself. One can be pro-life simply because of scientific fact and natural reason. I could back up these scientific facts with my faith in Jesus Christ, but seeing that you are agnostic, it would not make a difference to you, so we won't even go there. I truly hope that you will be able to see the logic in my points.
Malori
This is a new person btw. I think you are missing the issue at hand. You're talking about science, but you're also twisting it to support your feeble argument. There is no specific point at which life begins. It is a continuum. A zygote merely has the potential to be a human being. You cannot say something that has the potential to be a human being is being murdered without going down a very slippery slope. The precursors to the zygote were also alive, ie the sperm and the egg. So should masturbation be illegal because the wasted sperm could potentially be a human being? And even if you are opposed to masturbation (which is absurd in its own right) what if a man has a wet dream? Did he commit involuntary manslaughter? What if someone kicks a man in the testicles and he loses the ability to produce? Did the kicker commit murder too? Your argument is ludicrous. And I truly hope YOU see the logic in my points.
ReplyDeleteThis man explains the entire thing much better than I do. That is if you bother to read it.
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/a-fertilized-egg-is-not-a-human-being/
To the new Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFor the record I did "...bother to read..." the article you cited. On a factual basis I dismiss the premise of the argument you support and with it the conclusions drawn from it.
Ignoring masturbation and other absurd statements, let us remain focused on the point at hand: abortion.
I concur that sperm and an egg are not by themselves a person. I do not believe that anyone in the pro-life movement disagrees. So, let us set aside that argument as well. What is important is the joining of the egg and sperm. I will address that by looking at the definition of a Zygote.
According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, a zygote is, "a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell" (1)
Merriam Webster's Dictionary also provides the definition of an individual as, "existing as a distinct entity : separate" (2)
Merriam Webster's Dictionary also states that a entity is, "being, existence; especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence b : the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes" (3)
Furthermore, Merriam Webster defines abortion as, "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus" (4)
What I find interesting is that Merriam Webster defines a embryo as, "1 a archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception" (5)
From this, it seems the Merriam Webster emphasis the embryo as human when they state, "...especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception"
I conclude that your choice of the term Zygote seems appropriate given that it identifies a unique life. In our case our Zygotes are human. A person.
What I find more interesting is that you consider yourself a human. After all, by your own presented argument one cannot be sure that another is a human given that we live in a continuum. I believe that would even be evident by observing an infant growing into a child and then growing into adulthood. When is one truly an adult after being a child?
A human being is created at the moment of conception. I have no problem laying down a definition. It also seems that one of the most widely accepted dictionaries has no problem with defining it either. As I have stated in previous writings, if it is not human than what is it? I am confident it is not a duck. I am also confident it is not a tree. In fact, I could list everything in the world but a human and be 100% certain it isn't any one of those. After exhausting all possibilities, I realize more clearly than ever that it is indeed a human.
The joining of the egg an sperm to birth is an inescapable part of the human experience.
(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zygote
(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individual
(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entity
(4) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
(5) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embryo