Frank Pastore

Thus, Muise argues, according to the author of Roe, if an unborn child is a person, then their right to life trumps their mother’s right to “choose” their death. In his mind, this is what the whole abortion debate comes down to.

So, I asked him why he thinks the National Right to Life is opposed to this strategy, and he said, “They fear losing at the risk of winning. They’re satisfied with the status quo and are waiting for a better time to go after Roe.” In simple terms, they just don’t think it’s worth the risk right now.

Muise disagrees.

Dear National Right to Life, why do you oppose this strategy? Millions of us pro-lifers would love to know.

What Muise and his supporters want is for a state to pass a Human Life Amendment and the litigation eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court. He believes the Supremes wouldn’t rule on the personhood question itself, but would rather remand it back to the states for them to decide the personhood question for themselves. This is the federalism the nation was cheated of when SCOTUS wrongly passed Roe.

Right now, leading the way towards the passage of a Human Life Amendment is the state of Georgia, thanks to the hard work of the Georgia Right to Life. So far, things are looking pretty good.

As far as the whole personhood issue goes, to be logically consistent, pro-choice advocates must hold the view that children in the womb are human non-persons that only later become persons somehow—maybe when they grow enough big body parts, or their heads exit the womb, or maybe when they develop a sense of self-concept—around the age of two.

But how can your size, or having the right body parts, or your spatial location determine your moral value as a person? How big do you have to be to be a person? Why not one millimeter smaller? What are the specific body parts or organs that make you a person? Am I less of a person if I lose some brain cells in an accident? Did I suddenly become a person when the doctor cut the uterine wall during my mother’s C-section or when he lifted me out of the uterus? Was I not a person moments before?

This type of reasoning makes personhood sound something like weight—something you gain and lose through time. But personhood is not a property I have, it is the substance—the essence—of who I am. I am not a human that happens to be a person, I am a human-person—the term is implicitly redundant.

Every argument I’ve ever read for the existence of this pro-choice created category of “human non-persons” fails miserably when challenged.

There’s just no good argument against the traditional view that all humans are persons from the moment of fertilization.

So, getting back to our football game: What will it be, National Right to Life? Do we kick the field goal or go for the win?

I’d like to hear from the kicking team.

How about it National Right to Life?

Frank Pastore

The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Frank Pastore's column. Sign up today and receive daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.