-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Political columnist Froma Harrop makes the odd and offensive suggestion in this column (entitled “Akin’s Consistency is GOP’s Real Problem”) that fingernails are equivalent in human value to an early-trimester unborn child:
I believe that abortions should be easy to obtain early in a pregnancy and progressively harder to get as time goes on. The issue isn’t when life begins, but when “personhood” begins. Sperm, unfertilized eggs and fingernails are all life and human. The point of development at which the fertilized egg should be considered a full-fledged person is determined by theology or philosophy, not science.
Basing when human life begins on the nebulous idea of “personhood” leads to the kind of fallacious thinking that equates a fetus with sperm, eggs, and (weirdly) fingernails. Yes, a sperm and egg constitute the ingredients of human life, but taken separately they aren’t human life. Combined, at the moment of conception, the ingredients form a human being.
Where do fingernails fit in? No idea.
The chief ethical challenge for supporters of abortion-on-demand is defining when “personhood” begins. For pro-lifers, that decision is easy. It begins at conception. Abortion supporters, however, must choose another arbitrary date, at which point basic human rights and constitutional protections are conferred.
From the paragraph I quoted above, it’s obvious that Ms. Harrop struggles with that decision. Why should an abortion be more difficult to obtain as the pregnancy progresses? Is an unborn child becoming “more human,” while not fully human until after birth? From a moral standpoint, is a third trimester abortion wrong (or more wrong) than a first trimester abortion? If so, why?
Those are the challenges of abortion-rights advocates. Most in their camp feel comfortable defining “personhood” as beginning at birth, when the baby can be sustained apart from the mother’s body. The trip down the birth canal makes the difference. (The reality, of course, is that a newborn baby is just as reliant for survival on the mother as he or she would be while still in the womb.)
Pro-life conviction based on the sacredness of human life from conception to natural death is the most consistent position to take in the abortion debate. Those who fall into the other camp are routinely reduced to comparing unborn children to fingernails.
View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/08/24/are-fingernails-equivalent-to
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
deadite| 8.24.12 @ 9:42AM
Apparently Aiken isn't the only person who is ignorant of biology. Fingernails are just keratin, which is protein, and is considered to be dead cells.
JD| 8.24.12 @ 1:02PM
Many abortion supporters will say "fetuses aren't human" or "fetuses aren't alive". They've got plenty of science issues.
Bob S| 8.25.12 @ 1:14PM
Exactly, they aren't even living cells, and they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever developing into a full-fledged human being.
Mender| 8.24.12 @ 10:45AM
Goodness, that fingernails comment is tactless.
Anyway, here's my defense of abortion right after rape and incest: a newly-fertilized egg is pretty much the same as a mouse egg of the same age: indistinguishable without DNA testing or immunostaining, in fact. I think saying when that egg becomes human as we understand it is hard, but there's no question that a new-born baby is more human than an egg with a diameter of a millimeter.
That doesn't mean I don't see clear-drawn logic of considering human and empathizing with something so small as the nucleus of what will be a human, but I can't say forcing a raped woman who goes straight to police and her doctor to spend nine months carrying her rapist's baby inside her adds to the humanity of a nation's government or the happiness in the world.
Truth to Power| 8.24.12 @ 11:35AM
50 million murdered babies and you argue as if this was just a theoretical exercise. As we have seen rape and incest are small matters, our society has declared woman gods that decide the lives and deaths of their babies. It is mostly done for convenience and to avoid embarrassment. It has been extended right up to term and there are signs among the deep thinkers of the left that they want to extend it to the other side of birth.
JD| 8.24.12 @ 12:38PM
The crime of rape is committed by the rapist. This conversation is yet another example of the Left blaming others instead of the obviously guilty party. It's not the government or Pro-Life people "oppressing" the victim. It's the rapist. Or will we argue that plantation owners of the 1860s were oppressed by government and abolitionists, who robbed them of cheap labor?
Mender says we should abort a baby whose existence doesn't meet his criteria: "adds to the humanity of a nation's government or the happiness in the world." Hogwash. Such logic could justify the murder of a great many adults! The right to life is not conditioned on the subjective merits of the person!
spike59| 8.24.12 @ 4:01PM
"a newly-fertilized egg is pretty much the same as a mouse egg of the same age:"
====================
DUMBEST POST OF THE DAY...Congrats!!!!
yo, Bill Nye the Science Lie...there's AT LEAST one 'slight' difference: a 'mouse egg' is going to develop into a mouse, NOT a human being...dullard
Bob S| 8.25.12 @ 1:20PM
Notice how he has to qualify it with "indistinguishable without DNA testing." Well, if you can distinguish the two with DNA testing, then they are not "pretty much the same".
deadite| 8.25.12 @ 9:56AM
One problem with your logic. You say it is indistinguishable without DNA testing. Well, another test is to wait a few months. No mistaking the baby from the mouse!
The only reason we are having this argument is the same reason we are having the gay marriage argument. The federal govt is trying to enforce rules across the sovereign states. If states could choose their rules, Kansas could say no abortions period. Hardship? Its a five hour trip to Chicago, where abortions will likely remain plentiful. THe only hardship is making the girl think harder about her decision, catch a bus, and maybe realize she shouldn't get pregnant next time (I am not referring to rape). But if the feds butted out, we would be a happier country.
Bob S| 8.25.12 @ 1:19PM
It's still a potential human life. You have no right to deny it a chance at developing into a human being. She shouldn't be resentful at the baby, because it's not only her rapist's baby. More importantly, it's HER baby. It's God's gift to help her overcome the incredible emotional damage of being forced into sexual relations by an evil man. That baby will enrich her life more than any abortion counselor ever could.
Jrk| 8.25.12 @ 2:16PM
What you seem to overlook is the fact the baby doesnt belong to the rapist necessarily. It is also part of the mother so therefore she would be aborting her child.
Dai Alanye | 8.24.12 @ 12:01PM
We know the fertilized ovum is human, because what other species could it be? Assuming it manages to attach to the uterus wall -- which about sixty percent fail to do -- it has an excellent chase of staying alive until birth, assuming no-one maliciously interferes.
These are facts, but I know of no factual way of determining personhood, so any opinion is necessarily subjective and arbitrary. Froma Harrop has no more right to make that determination than anyone else. The law, however, must make such determinations, and it strikes me that anything other than from natural conception to natural death can lead to moral problems.
I oppose, however, forcing a woman to carry a rapist's child, the rights of the potential mother outweighing those of the potential child. Regarding incest, the question is whether it is voluntary or involuntary. If involuntary it qualifies as rape, either forced or statutory, but if voluntary there is no good reason for abortion. Too many people have the erroneous notion that children produced by incestuous relationships are monsters. Nothing could be farther the truth -- they merely have a heightened possibility of carrying two copies of deleterious recessive genes, a universal problem of inbreeding, but rarely an overly-serious one.
JD| 8.24.12 @ 12:34PM
There is no case for separating personhood from life, which clearly begins at conception.
You say "rights of the potential mother outweighing those of the potential child." Hogwash. If the two are people, then the child's right to life is equal to the mother's right to life, and the right to life outweighs lesser rights. Would you argue that my right to fire a gun is merely equal to the right to life possessed by the person in the path of my bullet, or does his right supersede mine in this case?
The idea that one person's right outweighs the equivalent right of another person was outlawed with the passage of the 14th Amendment, and rightly so.
The position of opposing abortion with a rape exception is less defensible than the position of supporting all abortion. The latter simply misdefines personhood, while the former defines it correctly, then supports murder for convenience.
darcy| 8.24.12 @ 12:41PM
I agree with you, JD: "the right to life outweighs lesser rights." Very well stated, and it should be trumpeted loudly and often.
Al Adab| 8.24.12 @ 3:44PM
Would it be OK to consider Debbie Wasserman-Schultz analagous to a fingernail? Perhaps we could decide who is a "legitimate" person and who is not, or better yet, we could allow some government agency to decide the matter. Then there would be a way to allocate health care resources. Only "legiitimate" people would get care. It will be a brave new world.
The worship of the goddess Choice (not to mention Tolerance, Diversity and Gaia) is nothing short of idolotry and the sacrement of worship has cost the lives of 55MM persons. If six million is a holocaust, what does that number make?
spike59| 8.24.12 @ 4:17PM
The worship of the goddess Choice (not to mention Tolerance, Diversity and Gaia) is nothing short of idolotry and the sacrement of worship has cost the lives of 55MM persons. If six million is a holocaust, what does that number make?
================================
a party at the DNC Convention...
Bob S| 8.25.12 @ 1:23PM
A brave new world, or a throwback to an era when blacks were considered merely three-fifths of a person, when no one had any idea what to make of slavery.
Nick| 8.24.12 @ 4:48PM
[...] which about sixty percent fail to do [...]."
Ever wonder where that % 60 figure (or % 70, % 75, % 80, I've seen so many different numbers, I can't remember them all) comes from, Dai Alanye?
How would they know? Since, almost all of them are expelled naturally by the mother, how can they possibly come up with a percentage?
Also, the "fertilized ovum" (a.k.a., zygote) is not a potential human being, he IS a human being. A motile sperm cell & an ovum, from a male & female human, are potential human beings.
Once they join, they become a unique person, with his own DNA. Because he gets 23 chromosomes from his mother & 23 from his father.
This is basic human biology.
CJW| 8.24.12 @ 6:27PM
Nick
As we discussed, if you shoot a pregnant woman and kill her unborn child, you will be prosecuted for homicide of an unborn child. But if you cut somebody's fingernail, there is no criminal charge.
This idea of personhood is dangerous. There is a crazy lefty at Princeton, Peter Singer, who argues that we should be allowed to kill children up to the age of two. This is the natural logic if you define a person not when we know life starts but when we decide to give the protection of the law to life.
I thought we learned from slavery that was a bad idea.
Nick| 8.24.12 @ 6:49PM
Oh, I've known about Singer since 1997, W, when he wrote that garbage for the New York Slimes.
Excellent points, by the way. I meant to tell you that, in the other thread. Sorry.
I am puzzled, though, why the pro-aborts haven't tried to get those homicide prosecutions overturned (Scott Peterson, e.g.)? Do you know of any attempts?
CJW| 8.24.12 @ 7:36PM
Nick
They would have to argue the statutes are unconstitutional because the definition of an unborn child is vague, or that the statute is vague.
The end result would be that you could kick a pregnant woman and kill her unborn child, and the only charge would be a simple assault on the mother.
I do not believe the abortion crowd wants to make that argument which would focus attention on the definition, viability, and rights of the unborn child. Plus that would bring up the argument of why is it illegal to kill an unborn child for everyone except the mother and abortionist.
It would raise too many questions.
Have a pleasant weekend.
Not aware of any challenges to the law in Pa.
Nick| 8.25.12 @ 6:47PM
That sounds about right to me, W.
Hey, here's a video I found a while back that covers a baby's development, from conception to birth, with MRI scans & computer imaging:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....._embedded#!
It's amazing. Enjoy the rest of the weekend, too.
***WARNING***
Video shows a live birth (briefly) and female anatomy.
CJW| 8.25.12 @ 11:03PM
Thanks, Nick.
I was in the delivery room for the birth of my children. How anyone can support partial birth abortion, or leave the child from a botched abortion to die as Obama favored, is beyond me.
JD| 8.24.12 @ 12:28PM
Partial humanity. That's the argument. A being is "somewhat human" but not "human enough" to have rights.
Didn't we do away with such concepts with the passage of the 14th Amendment?
Al Adab| 8.24.12 @ 5:52PM
At what age does the being become a person and retroactive abortion no longer permissible?
ggoblue| 8.24.12 @ 12:30PM
heres an idea for her...lets say that it is a human the moment we can determine its sex....
that way when she supports the murder of female babies....for the crime of being female...
spike59| 8.24.12 @ 4:03PM
she does, anyway...no need to invent; half of the babies aborted are female; ergo, she supports killing females for convenience
spike59| 8.24.12 @ 4:05PM
ObaMao supports the same thing wholeheartedly; hell, he even supports letting the baby die in a trash bin if he/she survives an abortion attempt-and voted that way 3 times!
spike59| 8.24.12 @ 3:57PM
i can understand froma's confusion; she's a liberal, and intellectually, a liberal IS the equivalent of a fingernail
spike59| 8.24.12 @ 4:13PM
this is all you really need to know about foma:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vaLBNJmHLE
Bob S| 8.25.12 @ 1:13PM
Last time government was in the business of defining "personhood", we got the three-fifths compromise. These monsters are a throwback to the earliest days of the Democrat Party. This time, they don't even want to make "ugly black babies" (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/08/14/3453138/doctor-abortion-protesters-should.html) three-fifths of a person. They want to make them dead-on-arrival, and they're appealing to emotion, begging us to allow rape victims to get rid of their emotional baggage, so that they can kill those "ugly black babies".
Mnestheus| 8.27.12 @ 12:41AM
It's after midnight:
Where are your fingernails, David bass?