Get PJ Media on your Apple

Gosnell and ‘Pro-Choice’: Fleeing From Reason?

Take the emotion out of it. After Gosnell, is it possible for an impartial observer to offer a logical argument proving abortion is not murder?

by
David Steinberg

Bio

April 23, 2013 - 12:00 am
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

The act that occurred outside the womb is not just easily definable as a crime, it is easily understood as a crime. In a state of nature, sans government, intentionally killing a live baby is still aberrant because it is hard-coded — somewhere in those hated base pairs, Ms. Steinem, we’ll find it there eventually — that mentally stable humans wish to live. Even babies too young to fathom their own existence: note they are composed of elements designed for survival in their habitat, like limbs and lungs, so just like every other species, they were born to survive. Note that the nervous system is in on it, too — newborns avoid discomfort and pain, and do not attempt to kill themselves.

So: we say things like “inalienable right to life” not because it sounds like a lovely “mission statement,” but because we discovered it was true.

To define one act as murder and the other as … well, as nothing at all particularly, just as an action, the burden of proof is on the pro-choice movement to offer evidence that some change occurred during birth that properly defines the difference between life and not life.

They have the burden, and not the pro-life movement, because the rights of the live baby are easily understood and apparent. Even if the status of the unborn baby is proven to be “unknowable,” the pro-life movement still has no burden because they aren’t the ones interested in doing anything. The pro-choice movement is the side trying to do something: namely, abort. If you want to perform an action, that action must be legal — as in sans government, “state of nature” legal.

How has Gosnell changed the discourse? Irrelevant, manmade concepts such as “viability,” “wanted vs. unwanted,” “woman’s right to choose,” etc., now have been widely revealed and understood as “running away from reason” topics — which they logically must be. And so, for the first time, the pro-choice movement is being pressed to answer a question that logically has something to do with … abortion.

Here’s that question:

Is there any proof — or even evidence — that the passage through the birth canal transforms the unborn from something not in possession of an inalienable right to life to someone who does possess it? Manmade laws are irrelevant here: in the state of nature, does this transformation actually occur?

Uh-oh.

If the pro-choice crowd is in possession of this proof, they have been holding their cards for quite a while. As it stands, mankind is unable to prove a transformation occurs.

Bigger uh-oh: logically, this lack of proof does not simply criminalize late-term abortion. If the full-term unborn baby can not be proven bereft of the right to life, the pro-choice crowd then bears the burden of retracing the pregnancy — second by second — to find the moment when Nature bestows that right.

The reasoned, logical, unassailable truth — my emotions, Gloria Steinem’s emotions, Kermit Gosnell’s emotions being objectively irrelevant — is that no proof of this transformation can be identified tracing back to conception, therefore it occurs at conception.

Am I pro-life? Does Gloria Steinem believe in legal abortion in all circumstances? Enough already: our opinions on food and movies would be precisely as relevant.

After Gosnell, the intellectually honest and inquisitive must accept that abortion necessarily involves the taking of life, which means pro-abortion arguments must necessarily collapse upon themselves and disappear. Of course, intellectual honesty is not a requirement, but a choice.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
David Steinberg is the New York City Editor of PJ Media. Follow his tweets at @DavidSPJM.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"PPSP believes that every child should be a wanted child."

Translation: You literally ARE nobody 'til somebody loves you. If just ONE person doesn't want you around (namely, Mom), you're a nobody and she can snuff you and pat herself on the back for preventing the birth of an "unwanted" child -- conveniently ignoring the fact that unwantedness isn't an inherent condition of the child, but is a reflection of the attitude of the person doing the "unwanting."

BTW, the whole "wanted child" thing is based on the common falacy that unwanted pregnancy means unwanted baby. We've known for decades, if not centuraies, that this simply isn't true. Dr. Alec Bourne, who in 1938 successfully fought the British law against abortion for rape victims, said in his memoirs:

"Those who plead for an extensive relaxation of the law [against abortion] have no idea of the very many cases where a woman who, during the first three months, makes a most impassioned appeal for her pregnancy to be 'finished,' later, when the baby is born, is thankful indeed that it was not killed while still an embryo. During my long years in practice I have had many a letter of the deepest gratitude for refusing to accede to an early appeal."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Nonsense. Are there not anti-abortion women? The same would be true of men.

How about I insult you back? If men could get pregnant, women would be useless, other than for recreational sex.

"PPSP wants “every child to be a wanted child.”

Put the baby up for adoption. Someone actually does want that child. Lots of takers for that baby.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's their obsession with (and addiction to) sex. They cannot stop themselves, so everything must conform to that notion. Chopping up a baby ceases to be murder because if it was any other way, then the sexual activity of the addicts would suffer. If an entire race stood between them and a quickie, then they would wipe that race out, and it would cease to be genocide. For them, all definitions change out of necessity.

Someone said it here on a PJMedia comment board just the other day, and I have said it for years: Previous generations weren't "prudes"; they were just very aware that sex leads to pregnancy, therefore it must be taken seriously.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (73)
All Comments   (73)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Bear in mind Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a fighter . A fighter faces the angel of death and knows death will not be ignored nor cheated knowing you off your feet or the other person
In our modern world all of us with in the Culture of death . But we ignore it or learn to forget about it then when the angel of death shows up saying:" I will not be ignored or cheated " shocked and shaken lafter newtown you say Buy more guns then in very short order we hit the mark of 2000 guns now on the way to 3000 but because it is out of sights just like Dzhokhar after he walked away from his bomb to his happy friends the next day
But then the angel of death finds Dzhokhor: "I will not be ignored or cheated and he flees his happy friends who have amnesia regarding the death ciult that has murdered 50 million babies in mommies tender tummy who follow the business men fathers who go to China where 500 million unborn babies have been murdered
The Angel of death will not be cheated
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
footnote
But 19 year old Dzhokhor by the skin of his teeth cheated death but everyday for the rest of his life he will hear the the knock on the door by the angel of death unlike his friends living in the death culture and can ignore it
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
this escape amnesia is short lived . What is hell? What is purgatory? what is this distance from heaven?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb2Bv-U9NqE
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"PPSP believes that every child should be a wanted child."

The problem with that statement is that "wanting" is not an event; it is a process, whereas abortion is an event. Employing an event as a cure against a process at an arbitrary stage of that process is purely predjudicial. It has nothing to do with logic, reason, argument, science, philosophy, or whatnot. It is nothing more than an instant passion and is therefore arbitrary.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I come not to prove the Ad Hominem fallacy but to exploit it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"PPSP believes that every child should be a wanted child."

Translation: You literally ARE nobody 'til somebody loves you. If just ONE person doesn't want you around (namely, Mom), you're a nobody and she can snuff you and pat herself on the back for preventing the birth of an "unwanted" child -- conveniently ignoring the fact that unwantedness isn't an inherent condition of the child, but is a reflection of the attitude of the person doing the "unwanting."

BTW, the whole "wanted child" thing is based on the common falacy that unwanted pregnancy means unwanted baby. We've known for decades, if not centuraies, that this simply isn't true. Dr. Alec Bourne, who in 1938 successfully fought the British law against abortion for rape victims, said in his memoirs:

"Those who plead for an extensive relaxation of the law [against abortion] have no idea of the very many cases where a woman who, during the first three months, makes a most impassioned appeal for her pregnancy to be 'finished,' later, when the baby is born, is thankful indeed that it was not killed while still an embryo. During my long years in practice I have had many a letter of the deepest gratitude for refusing to accede to an early appeal."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

What that means is that abortion actually *is* a sacrament, but the mean old woman-oppressing male-dominated religious community is too Neanderthal to recognize it.

Doubt me? Google "abortion sacrament."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I am on the same side of the fence on this issue as you. However, I believe that your argument is flawed on one point. I think it is most obvious here:

“Is there any proof — or even evidence — that the passage through the birth canal transforms the unborn from something not in possession of an inalienable right to life to someone who does possess it? Manmade laws are irrelevant here: in the state of nature, does this transformation actually occur?”

You are asking, when, in the state of nature, a baby acquires human rights. You are explicitly stating that manmade laws are irrelevant... as if it is a some physical force of nature that bestows a human right, and not a manmade law. I believe that there is a fundamental flaw in those statements. Rights are entirely a construct of human society. The definition of a right (in this context) is:

“That which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc “

Societies decide what they are, who can have them, and when. We may believe that we have received them from the hands of God (or other higher authority). We may believe that they are inherent regardless whether the society that we live in supports them. But at the end of the day, they are enforced and administered by human societies… or not, as they choose. Nature knows nothing about rights. For example, gravity operates the way that it does regardless whether your moral principles endow you with the right to defy it. Conversely, nature doesn't endow a baby with human rights at a given moment... any more than human law endows a baby with mass at a given time in its gestation.

We can and should debate rights based upon our moral principles. But claiming that they originate from a nature that operates by the laws of physics really doesn’t make any sense to me. I believe it distracts from your argument.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So by your understanding, the Jews had no rights in Nazi Germany. Women have no rights in Saudi Arabia. Not that their rights are being trampled on or ignored, but since their governments don't bestow them, it's like gravity, unavoidable. If a government could reverse gravity, well, I'd guess we could float to work?
Yes nature bestows a baby with human rights the instant it becomes human. Thanks to science, we can identify humans with in a second or two after conception. They are fully human at that moment and will remain human even after their death, hence "human remains". DNA is nice that way. Kinda absolute, so far. Like gravity.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Gosnell case exposes the key Big Lie of the Abortion lobby: the "safe and legal" does not mean-- as it does regarding any other legitimate medical procedure you can name-- safe and REGULATED. The highest qualified heart or brain surgeon routinely jumps through mountains of federal and state-generated compliances and reports as part of providing their vital services. Detailed records, safeguards, and checklists are mandated.
Abortionists are entirely "self-regulated". Which meant that Gosnell could butcher women and babies for years in a clinic which was filthy even by dog kennel standards, because he could be reasonably sure that nobody would hold him accountable.
Roe v Wade simply dealt with the "back alley abortionists" by allowing them to hang out their shingles on Mainstreet, and told law enforcement to turn a blind eye onto their predations.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1. I've dubbed the prochoice aversion to regulations the Compton-Carr effect, after its most eloquent proponent: http://realchoice.blogspot.kr/2013/04/call-it-compton-carr-effect.html

2. Let's not forget that at least 6 of Gosnell's illegal third-trimester abortion patients never thought they were signing up for his "care." They made appointments at, walked into, and paid their money at a supremely reputable National Abortion Federation clinic in Delaware. They ended up across state lines, doped within inches of their lives by amateurs and moaning amid the cat feces in Gosnell's reeking, flea-infested "house of horrors." But somehow it's the prolifers' fault.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1.2 milllion abortions is a statistic; 1 infanticide is a tragedy. Thank you Joseph Stalin.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Again, how does that comment-link thing work?? Where's smelling -salts and fainting couch instructions, too?

Ms Sanger opposed abortion. She, however, was a quite enthusiastic fan of the open marriage ideal. She had four kids with her wealthy, artistic bohemian-ish architect husband, and then she went off to Greenwich Village to score with more established radicals. The notes from them were that she had red hair, sort of an insistent speaking manner, and that she was too fixated on the pleasures of non-marital sex. She was talking to people who had lots of it- why would they care to talk about it? She was patronized, more or less, by bohemians- so cute for such a dumb girl. Then she decided to make life better all around by coming up with really reliable prophylactics. That's what got her respect. Then she went to England, and got polished up by all sorts of 'respectable' Bloomsbury Types. She came back about as exotic as a kid on an exchange program in the 11th grade.

Oh- then she founded a non- profit. She hired fantastically good PR people and fundraisers. Money helped her respect level.

Her kids would get instructions to do things like ask the maid for a nice Thanksgiving dinner, if they came by her townhouse.

Women are told that sucking down a pill and having pre-marital sex on some wobbly guideline ( is he into you?) is responsible behavior. Most women want to be careful and responsible. It helps to point out that the advice-giver is bent. Do you go to swingers for relationship advice? Me, neither. That's who writes sex advice these days. That's who wrote sex advice those days, too.

It's bad advice, all around. Not just morally questionable, but ineffective. the people most likely to enjoy their private life? Married, stable, Protestant, one partner in life, raised by married parents, with a "patriarchal" "authoritarian" dad- I don't think they mean jerk- I think they mean a Man, for a dad. Not one advice columnist fits this profile. Think about it- the happy one isn't writing h/t be happy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All