In this era of ultrasound technology, it seems an incredible feat of cognitive dissonance that it is still possible to consider abortion a morally viable option.
We will ooh and ahh over a pregnant woman’s 3-d ultrasound picture, marveling at the baby’s features, determining that he has Daddy’s nose and Mama’s mouth. At the same time, we uphold her right to kill the babe inside her womb, because it is no more than a collection of fetal cells, not a person.
Of course a baby, born or unborn, is human. Simians produce simians, canines produce canines, felines produce felines. And humans can only produce humans. Certainly these fetal procurement companies are not interested in simian or canine organs, but in human organs. It is not humanity that is denied the unborn child, but personhood.
We take our personhood so for granted that we think of it as a real, biological fact, like our humanness. But it is not. Personhood is a legal construction, and can be bestowed or taken away by an act of legislation. Consider that women became persons in Canada in 1929.
In 1927, the Famous Five petitioned the government about the meaning of the word ‘persons’ and asked the Supreme Court of Canada to examine the word.
The following year the Supreme Court ruled that women are not included in the definition of ‘persons’. The Famous Five appealed the decision to Canada’s highest appeal court at the time, the Judicial Committee of England’s Privy Council.
On [October 18, 1929] the lords on the judicial committee came to a consensus that the word ‘persons’ did indeed include the female gender.
Since the unborn are not persons, the rights of the mother to “reproductive freedom” supersede the child’s right to life. As we can see in the videos of abortion doctors discussing the buying and selling of their organs, the unborn are human chattel — kind of reminiscent of slavery, isn’t it?
I know that on the feminist left there are women who really don’t care whether the fetus is a child or a bunch of tissue. But surely these are extremists, not representative of the mainstream. And yet, the mainstream has become inured to the daily murder of millions of children, simply because it chooses to blind itself to the unpleasant.
No one likes to struggle against the current of popular opinion. We fear being branded anti-feminist, anti-woman, religious extremists. Or perhaps we know a woman — or several women — who have had abortions, and we don’t wish to offend. It’s a touchy subject. We see the pro-life protesters outside the hospital each week on “abortion day,” and we don’t want to be identified with those who would parade such gruesome imagery on the public streets. We look away, annoyed as if it were the pro-lifers themselves who originate these horrible pictures. We don’t want to think that they are merely showing an apathetic public the terrible truth.
One day, I am sure that children will read about our society in their history textbooks, and they will be shocked by the atrocities that we so apathetically allowed to happen.