Current Temperature

3.4°C

September 27, 2020 September 27, 2020

I could believe in abortion (Part I)

Posted on June 14, 2016 by 40 Mile Commentator

EDITOR’S NOTE: The views expressed in submitted columns may or may not necessarily be the same views held by the Commentator/Courier

By Craig Funston
Now don’t get your nose in a knot: I have not exchanged my pro-life position for a pro-death one. I am just going out on a limb with some intriguing arguments, ones that are normally used to defend abortion.
This time I will turn the tables and defuse that position, using the same arguments.
I really struggle with the whole abortion position, as you will know from previous columns–from the innocent human victims, the misguided mothers (maybe even fathers), and even to the medical profession that sees no inconsistency or immorality in killing a child.
Please consider the following disclaimer carefully: I am not a ranting nor raving extremist. I am simply stating my conviction, and I know that many, many readers hold the same view.
I am intentionally leaving out the “faith-based” rationale—you know, the factors that include morality, the Bible, God, and personal belief system. From my perspective, they are my strongest argument, but I refrain. My six points (three this week and three next) are the ones that abortionists could throw at me, so I just want to do the courteous thing and throw them back…nicely.
I really need a few pages to develop these thoughts, not just two columns.
I could believe in abortion…if it wasn’t for science. Get it? I am using science to defuse the abortion argument! How can a guy from humanities (that would be me) be in league with anyone from the sciences? However, when science is beahaving like genuine science, rather than religion masquerading as science (hello, evolution), I’m in. But I digress…
All I know is what I see in the womb (thanks to technology, via ultrasounds) is not a lifeless blob or loose collection of cells. When I see that child, I marvel at the fingers and toes, the head with all its faculties intact, and the skelteal system—just for starters. How anyone could see anything other than that is beyound me. Science comes through in spades to reinforce a pre-birth pro-life position.
And furthermore, we have those indisputable rules of reproduction (thanks again to biology). We can take our cue from the animal world—like we have to?—so when conception takes place, resulting in a calf, dog, cat, or whatever. Who would dispute that life begins at conception for a calf, for example, but not a human?
A culture that messes with genuine science is one that is on the slippery slope of moral implosion. I would need a column or two on the history of such movements worldwide in the past (Dr. Mengele, anyone?) and note what happens when a society turns on itself—that is, messes with the lives and bodies of its most vulnerable people.
I could believe in abortion…if it wasn’t for eyesight. Have you ever seen a picture of an aborted baby? Or part of one—that is, part of a picture or even (gasp) of a baby torn apart? Universities ban said pictures from pro-life displays. Ever thought why? Not because it’s too graphic; they show far worse things on screens and posters. I think it’s partly because it’s too revealing and too unnerving morally.
Anyone with even only one eye can see clearly that those mangled pieces are part of a real human being. If there is a problem with the eyesight argument, it’s with those who are”blinded” by selfishnes, peer pressure, mass media, and half truths.
Here’s a simple test: Show the picture of a butchered baby to a child. Ask them what they see. I have no doubt they will say they see a mangled child. Sometimes kids see things more clearly than we adults do.
I could believe in abortion..if it wasn’t for conscience. It really baffles me that anyone in the baby-killing business— doctors, nurses, and support staff—could study the whole process of conception, gestation, and delivery (the life continuum) and not grasp the reality what they’re dealing with. What has ever happened to their conscience?
If carrying the baby is an inconvenience, the least the woman could do is carry it full term and give it up for adoption. There are reputedly thousandsm (probably even tens of thousands) of families that are ready and willing to adopt. Abortion is a grisly form of birth control, I have no civil words for that—except that those who practice this are confused at best, sick at worst.
More fallout next week.

Leave a Reply

Get More Bow Island Commentator
Log In To Comment Latest Paper Subscribe