Unanswered Questions

Some abortion-choice advocates make a claim for an individual human being's sovereign right to use their own body at any moment, as they wish, including giving life, or killing the life inside.

To be meaningful, such a right must be held by a living human being, a somebody; the dead don't exercise such rights over their bodies, for rather obvious reasons.

What gives rise to individual body rights if there is no life?

This is the studiously avoided question, one which abortion-choice advocates fail to answer.

Human life is a prerequisite for any other right a human being might possess, including bodily sovereignty. Life is of infinite worth, but what is assumed is that it is not of infinite worth (that it has less value than a "right") for the purposes of killing the unborn. The "right" cannot stand without that question begging assumption. The argument is then made that giving life is an act of voluntary charity that is extended to another human being and so giving life need not be extended to the unborn.

Such an argument is generally ignorant of virtues, and lacks an understanding of how the virtues impact lives. To one who makes such an argument, compassion must be shown, their misunderstanding forgiven, for they are in the dark.

Whenever one lives completely at the sovereign power of another being, they live at the mercy of that sovereign power, because charity is a distribution of benefits, but mercy is shown by the powerful towards the weak, when it comes to life, and the execution and judgement of sovereign power. Mercy is about compassion, that is suffering, whereas charity doesn't require suffering of the giver. If such suffering does occur in the execution of sovereign power, then that's called grace.

So the claimed "right" to abort is the "right" to be unmerciful to one who is completely dependent upon that living sovereign, and utterly lacks compassion and grace.

So here's some more questions:

What does it mean to be merciful?
What's unique about the mother/child relationship?
Can you kill someone who is fully dependent upon you?
Your mother extended mercy to you, why don't you extend it to others?
Is such a right a sign of love?
Is killing your child an act of love?

Do you devalue your own life when you do so?

Why should anyone be shown mercy, if a mother doesn't show it to her own child?

The biggest thing missing in such arguments is love, because it is upon love that the other two, mercy and charity, exist.

So here's another question: by who's grace was that original sovereign bodily right given?

Convincing Little Lies...

....we tell ourselves, and what they do to us. Jennifer Fulwiler takes a look at how she became pro-life.

[HT:Dawn Eden of Dawn Patrol]

Controlled Burn - Breaking it down for Barack

Lately Jill Stanek has been taking on Barack Obama over his stance on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act:

 (5 ILCS 70/1.36)
    Sec. 1.36. Born alive infant.
    (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
    (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
    (c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section.
    (d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion.
    (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards.
(Source: P.A. 94?559, eff. 1?1?06.)

The emphasis above is mine - you can grab the current section here.

The above section I retrieved via a link from Obama's campaign at http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/06/30/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php.

But the original bill (SB1082) can be found here.

Here's the contentious wording of the original that Obama opposed so you can compare it to the final wording I emphasized above:

24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.

Jill's point is that Obama's focus during the March 30th 2001, of the State of Illinois 92nd General Assembly, was distinctly about protecting abortion and not infants that might be born alive as a result of an induced labor abortion. Clearly stated:Giving birth as a means of “abortion” is infanticide. The key word term for Obama is “abortion” and not human person. The lines 24, 25 and 26 above appear to be what Obama believed was unconstitutional.

So do Barack's rebuttal claims have merit? In particular when looking at his legislative character on this vital issue?

He seems to be pointing everywhere except his own testimony. Why?

Pgs 86-87 tell the story.

Here's a hint at Obama's thinking: If a child is "born-alive" and is "viable" outside the womb with medical assistance, that will undermine the abortion precedent to electively kill children after that gestational time.

Abortion is the focus - not the human being this potential president would be sworn to protect.

Two other steps to get a clean grasp on this:
- breaking his Senate testimony down line by line.
- studying the actual wording of the act to see what it reveals

We'll continue to fire this down to a nice precise understanding.