Back when the presidential campaign was in full swing, both Barack Obama and John McCain took part in the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency. During that forum, candidate Obama was asked, “When does a baby get human rights?” His answer was:
Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.
What does pay grade have to do with the facts?
After his election, President Obama stated during his speech at Notre Dame:
I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.
He is right to say that; this controversy should not be shoved aside. It is a life-and-death matter, and someone is wrong about it. That is something everyone should think about: one side of this debate is wrong, but which?
Think about the logic pro-abortionists use to justify their position. That life doesn’t start until the fetus is “viable.” Early on, it is just a mass of cells, and certainly not a human. They also hide behind the more socially acceptable title of “pro-choice” rather than calling themselves exactly what they are: pro-death. After all, death is the opposite of life, so “pro-death” is a more accurate description.
I’ve stated very clearly in the past that if you consider yourself “pro-choice,” you are in the same camp as a pro-abortionist, so let’s start the debate there. If you are pro-choice, what are you choosing between? You are choosing between eliminating something and keeping something.
The next question is, eliminate what? Is this “thing” an inert globule of organic matter? Or is it a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a fetus? These latter terms are employed to describe different stages of gestational development. But do they define whether the “it” is human or non-human? It must be one or the other. This is like using the words “baby,” “child,” “teen,” “adult,” and “senior.” Do these expressions refer to humans or non-humans?
Let’s think about this issue from a coldly logical vantage point. Upon what core issues can all sides agree? (1) When a male sperm and a female egg unite, something happens. Something is henceforth there. (2) That something either is living or non-living. Is there a third option? Clearly, it is living. It takes nourishment and receives oxygen. It exhibits movement. It undergoes cell replication. All of this is undeniable. (3) This living thing either is human or non-human. DNA analysis will clearly identify it as human – 100% of the time, no matter the ideology of the scientist. If it were identified as non-human – say, if it were determined to be an avocado or a duck – then it may be eliminated at any time, at any stage, and for any purpose. We take the lives of plants and animals, to be used for a higher good, without hesitation. The assumption of civilized society always has been, however, that human life constitutes an entirely different category. Therefore, by logical examination, this “thing” that is being taken is a living human, and one must agree that abortion can be described only as an action that is the taking of a human life.
President Obama clearly believes and supports the theory that the lives of pre-born infants are subject to the choices of society’s democratic process. He obviously chooses not to believe that a living human being is purposefully killed in the abortion procedure. Since this is the case, why does he call for us to “reduce the number of women seeking abortions”?
There is something wrong with this logic. I hope you understand that.