Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, April 06, 2007
Gregory Koukl :: Townhall.com Columnist
Partial-Birth Abortion Is Not about Abortion
by Gregory Koukl
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


When you start with the view that abortion is a sacred right, then by reason of a logical slippery slope, you must argue for anything called abortion. "All abortions ought to be legal. D&X is an abortion. Therefore, D&X ought to be legal, too." Slide a bit further and it looks like this: "If partial-birth abortion is moral, and partial-birth abortion is essentially the same as infanticide, then infanticide must be moral, too."

We could, however, regain our moral sanity and slide the other way. If this atrocity is made illegal, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the very same thing is happening out of sight inside the womb in every late-term abortion. If the first is morally grotesque and illegal, then the second is grotesque and should be illegal, too.

Pro-abortionists know this, and that's why they're fighting so hard against the federal ban. They want freedom of choice at any cost, regardless of the moral consequences. When they raise the alarm, "This is the first step towards making all abortions illegal!" we finally have their real objection to the federal ban.

It's a legitimate fear. Once one realizes D&X abortions are clearly immoral, it's going to be hard to justify any late-term abortion. On the other hand, if it's clear that a living human child is being butchered, yet D&X remains legal simply because abortion is legal, then even the hardiest libertarians should realize there's something terribly wrong with the current state of abortion law.

No Clear Moral Intuitions

The question we now face is, "Which way will we slip?"

Will the Supreme Court, will Rudy Giuliani admit that there are no good reasons for partial-birth abortion? Will we admit D&X is really infanticide by another name? Will we then recognize that any late-term abortion under cover of the mother's womb is enough like D&X to be immoral, too? If partial-birth abortion is de facto infanticide, what meaningful moral distinction is there between infanticide and any other late-term abortion? They all destroy a little human being.

Or will we slide the other way? Will the public, will the courts admit that pro-lifers are right that partial-birth abortions are virtual infanticide, but then conclude that since abortion is moral--and here we slip the other way--then infanticide must be moral, too? Some have already proposed this.

We can go either way. That's why we're at such a critical juncture.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Gregory Koukl is founder and president of Stand to Reason, an organization devoted to a thoughtful and engaging defense of classical Christianity in the public square. He is also a radio talk show host and author of Relativism—Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air.

Be the first to read Gregory Koukl's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

FLM
First, to able to demand that we save the zygotes, we have to get the law to recognize them as human too. Next we would have to find a way to save the zygotes; but, we cannot legislate doctors and researchers to find ways to save the zygotes because we do not legilsate them to HAVE to find cures for diabetes, cancer, AIDS, and so forth. There are no laws to do such so it is not not inconsistent for the law not to legislate about saving zygotes.

Second, I have to totally disagree with your comment about the remains. The only reason the law has anything to do with burial at all has to do with public health issues. there are plenty of John and Jane Does out there that do not have proper ceremonies for them and the law does not require them to have such ceremonies. Only that they be buried.

To Thoughtful Rob(l?)in & Others
Thoughtful Roblin Writes:
"Your comparison of miscarriages and zygots with abortion has a flaw. The former two involve something which happens outside of the control of the mother while the latter involves actively seeking and premeditating the murder of a living being."

First of all, by "The former two" I assume you mean miscarriage ("zygots"(sic) is not an occurance). And by "murder of a living being" I will assume you mean "living HUMAN being", as all the little chickens and piggies are innocent also, but we slaughter and devour them with a clear conscience.

I'm trying to determine if a newly-concieved just-fertilized egg, a Zygote, IS in fact or can be considered to be a human being. I also examine our society's other beliefs and practices WRTO the fetus to see if they are consistent with the claim that the newly-conceived Zygote IS or should be considered to be a Human Being.

I therefore regard your statement:

"The question here is whether we have the right to seek the destruction of the life of something that is innocent of wrong doing."

As CIRCULAR as it applies to a criticism of my argument. You are assuming as a postulate that the newly-fertilized egg is a living human being and deciding if we are justified in killing it. I'm examing the truth, or at least the reasonableness, of that postulate.

Thoughtful Roblin:
"2) Your argument that feelings determine the intrinisc value of human life is also flawed."

I make so such claim about feelings determining any "intrinsic value".

First of all I have no divine knowledge of any kind, and that's what it would take (I believe) to actually determine "the intrinsic value of human life" or to authoritatively state that the newly-conceived zygote is or is not a human being.

At the other end of the pregnancy process I claim that the newborn baby is a Human Being not because I have any divine knowledge about it; it's simply something that just about everybody agrees on. Since I see nothing supernatural about the actual birth that would suddenly bestow this humanity, I believe that the baby is already a Human Being for some time before it's born.

We are all free to hold personal beliefs and opinions without regard to how logically consistent they are. However, to be good ones our Laws that govern our society need to make sense and be consistent.

If we demand in our Law that all pregnant women behave as if the newly-conceived zygote is a Human Being, but our Law does not recognize that some half of all newly-conceived Zygotes fail to implant and our Law does not demand that we strive to save these human beings or at the very least treat their worldly remains the same way as any other deceased human being, then our laws are inconsistent. Frankly, our laws are then inconsistent and self-servingly hypocritical.

The prospect of laying out this argument statement-by-statement from start to finish makes me exhausted just thinking about it. I'll probably be motivated to do so by some other Article about Abortion. And I'm sure with election season coming on, I won't have to wait long to see such an article on TH (right next to the flag-burning one).

But I do know what I'll call it, thanks to "Conservative Ron" above: "The Feeble Argument"!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.