Fetal Life and
Abortion: Human Personhood at Conception
____________________
Displayed Responses 2010
Displayed Responses 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
2010
January 15th: Common-Decency Is Basic to Humanity
Reprinted from displayed responses July 3, 2003:
Comment: In your last posting, E.R. speaks about common-decency and how the acceptance of partial-birth abortion would infringe on the dignity of a society, as unfitting to the human culture. I agree with that thinking. It is not only that we are human; it is that we know that we are human and have to live up to what we are. I would place legalized abortion in the same class as legalized homosexual behavior, if that ever comes about. Abortion doesn’t fit into the pattern of what has always been known by the majority of people as responsible, human conduct. It is a contradiction of reality and, because of that, pertains to the realm of artificiality and falsehood.
Reply: There is a long-standing tradition of people “setting the standard” of acceptable behavior for membership within the society of human beings. Sometimes the code of conduct has been written into law, but there is a deeper standard in the gut-feeling of each person about what it is to be human, and to be different from the lesser animals. In this common understanding of ourselves, abortion is seen as an indecency. In the original meaning of indecency, abortion does not “fit in,” as you have indicated, with our individual and social human nature.
It is interesting to note that much of the world’s literature focuses on the uniquely human characteristic of an individual, and on the struggle to preserve that aspect of his or her dignity as a person. In reading the literature we understand the person, because we understand ourselves. This exemplifies our common-ness, in fact, as well as in perception. History is a record of people striving to maintain their moral integrity.
Under ideal circumstances we could trust the words of even a stranger. Why? Because people are expected to be truthful. We have a right to the truth; otherwise the society crumbles. If dishonesty were to be “tolerated,” social and commercial mingling would become intolerable. And this cause-and-effect relationship is not of human making; it belongs to the very nature of things.
You seem to be saying that legalized homosexual practice would be unfitting to human society because it would be a falsehood to use the reproductive faculties for something other than reproduction. Your observation throws some light on the indecency of legalized abortion, the misuse of the product of reproduction, namely the killing, rather than the nurturing, of the child. The insult to the society is the legalization of such behavior. The question here is whether falsehood should be imposed upon a society that knows dishonesty to be destructive of its foundation. For government to sanction abortion is to falsify the harm accruing to both the baby and the mother, by attempting to label abortion as something good, and worthy of Constitutional protection. By attempting to protect the “good” of legalized abortion with a “law” that was invented for this occasion, the Court displays its dishonesty. It is against such deceptive violence to common-decency that the people are instinctively rebelling.
Truth, which is to know things as they are, is sometimes forfeited in favor of a court’s ambition to “mould” society according to their own vision. Using your example from homosexual practice, the clamor for same-sex “marriage” is a demand upon the society to accept, or at least tolerate, a falsehood. There is no homosexual union that can truthfully be called marriage. Marriage, in word and in fact, is a unique reality, incapable of attainment by such a union. To “grant” marriage benefits to such a union is an added falsehood. Marriage benefits are rightly recognized by society because of the contributions made by the family to the society, namely the reproduction and nurture of children. In the case of legalized abortion, the added dishonesty is found in the deprivation of persons and their talents, taken away from the society by the Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.
If I may add a closing note, let me suggest that we, as a people, must begin to care for ourselves. Erosion of human dignity has been taking place. The recent fad of “political correctness” has silenced our native instinct toward self-preservation through moral integrity. An artificial, man-made standard has been placed in substitution for the natural formula of truth and fairness, as the norm of human behavior. Truth and fairness have been derailed by the false notion of “toleration.” Toleration of what is evil has become a “virtue,” and the evil has become a “good.”
The old saying is true: “One thing leads to another!” Should we not pause to ask: “Where do we go from here?” You may refer to our Theme Verse to help you with your answer. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________