Wednesday, May 20, 2009

The Right to Kill or the Right to Live

When the President called for Americans to agree that, while differing on abortion, "we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually," he failed to make clear why this is so.

If the unborn baby is not a person who possesses an intrinsic right to life, why is the decision to abort so "heart-wrenching?" If the fetus is just a collection of cells, why the angst?

Furthermore, does the fact that a decision is "heart-wrenching" make it right or rational?

When the President acknowledged that, in the end, the two positions on abortion are irreconcilable, he was on more solid ground. Both sides frame the issue as a question of rights -- specifically a woman's "right" to control her reproductive destiny by any means, including abortion vs. the unborn child's right to live.

The weakness of the pro-abortion (or "pro-choice") position becomes evident at this point. The claimed right of control over reproduction is not commensurate with another person's right to live, and not to be killed in the womb.

If President Obama had actually spoken of abortion itself, rather than addressing abortion only as an issue of controversy, he would have found himself defending the indefensible, which explains why he avoids this discussion at all costs.

Dr. Albert Mohler

No comments: