With Judge Brett Kavanaugh—recently nominated by President Donald Trump to fill the vacancy left on the Supreme Court after the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy — Roe v. Wade is in the news again.
Somehow—I received the following email from Change.org:
“Daniel — President Trump just nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court Justice. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, his appointment could overturn Roe v. Wade, and end legal access to abortion for millions of women across the country. The petition below calls on Sen. Susan Collins to oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, and stand up for safe and legal access to reproductive rights for all women.
“Petitioning Susan Collins – Tell Susan Collins to Save Reproductive Rights
“Petition by Abby K. – 7,708 Supporters”
Oh the humanity… no really—imagine the humanity of overturning Roe v. Wade.
Let’s make a case for overturning the inhumane and barbaric Roe v. Wade.
First of all—I wasn’t aware that “reproductive rights” were in danger of being outlawed. Does this mean that it’s going to be illegal to start a family in America?
Some people say that an unborn child is just the body of the mother—therefore she may choose to do whatever she wants with “her own body” and is thereby entitled to her right to privacy.
As far as I know, human beings only give birth to human beings—no human being has ever naturally given birth to a non-human being.
Also—as far as I know—in most “safe” and routine abortions, the mother doesn’t end up dead—just her child.
And again—as far as I know—a child can have a different blood type than the mother while the child is still in the womb. If the mother were to receive an unprocessed blood transfusion of a different blood type—even if it was from her own unborn baby—she would die.
So… how is an unborn human baby not a human being separate from the body of its mother? Wouldn’t the mother also die during an abortion if the baby was only her own body?
And isn’t the mother’s body the body of a human being? How then are abortions not encompassing the death of at least some form of a human being?
How is only the mother a human being—and not her own child—if her child is her own body?
Has society gotten to the point that if one human being cannot exist without the help of another human being—that the human being who needs help can be killed by the human being who has to help it?
Even if the human being who needs help only needs that help from another to exist for less than a year? Why not just let every human being who cannot prepare food and feed themselves be killed by those who have to feed them—should they “choose” to do so?
Why not start with all children under the age of two or three years old?
Does that sound barbaric? I wholeheartedly agree. Killing innocent children before they are born—just because they need help from their mothers to survive—is barbaric.
If you’re reading this article right now—are you still alive? Isn’t it also true that you are dying? You’re not going to live in your physical body forever, right? (Of course—eternal life in heaven is different than eternal life in a dying earthly body.)
If you have to be alive in order to die, then how is an unborn child any different? Would a baby die before it was born if it did not receive nutrition from its mother? Doesn’t that mean it’s alive?
Are human beings people? If a human being is a person, then wouldn’t the 14th Amendment apply to a person who is 12 months old (12 months since conception = 3 months old) the same as it would apply to a person who is six months old (six months since conception)?
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirms (in part): “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Doesn’t the 14th Amendment’s right to life—and its Due Process Clause’s right to privacy—apply to a person of any age?
A person is a person—no matter how young they are.