CERC has an excellent article reminding us of a fundamental truth so often we ignore: every human being has a unique genetic code irreplaceable in the universe, and that unique person is created at the moment an ovum is fertilized.
That person should never be considered property of another human being. Yet we have upheld in the Law that offspring are the property of the mother, and she may kill that child if she'd prefer it go away, a right deemed to be protected under the 14th Amendment.
The internal contradiction of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment left room for judicial misinterpretation. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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.
The internal contradiction follows: "All persons born are citizens of the State" and "no State shall deprive any person of life." Yet even when the person fails this basic definition of citizenship (that they are born), they still have the right to inherit property. When the child in the womb is not considered an inviolable person, that makes her a slave/property of the woman bearing her, whose right to privacy in her decision supersedes the child's right to life. Yet she remains even while in the womb "a person within the jurisdiction of the State" and therefore she ought to have "equal protection of the laws." We have accorded one person ownership of another human being. And if she'd prefer her child 'go away', then she has the means allowed. Hitler also wanted people to 'go away', and he's considered the epitome of evil.
The article says it well:
We swim against the tide of natural law and pretend that life is not life and killing not killing. With the help of overwhelming propaganda from the media, the entertainment industry, activists and politicians, an artificial world has been constructed.
But we still know that it's not tissue, it's not a fetus, it's not an accident and it's not unwanted. Most of all, it's not about "choice." The right to choose implies that the equation involves one person. It doesn't. A baby is a separate being, accepted by science as being unique at conception. It has its own distinct DNA, its own genomic character. At 12 weeks, an unborn baby is complete. It matures but nothing new develops. A toddler is different from an unborn child only to the extent a teenager is different from a seven-year-old. In other words, it is always a person. With inalienable rights and privileges.
The fact that it is dependant on its mother while in the womb is irrelevant. A newborn baby is also dependant on an adult to feed it and keep it alive. So for that matter are the seriously ill and the aged.We have allowed the cult of the self to blind our vision of what is good and bad, right and wrong. Choice has become taste, sexual love has become appetite, people have become disposable. Unless we allow the weakest to be born we are denying what underpins the very compassion, fairness and progress we claim to admire. Some rights are more important than others and none is more sacred than the right to life. [end quote]
Should the mother then have to bear her child against her will? Doesn't that make her a slave to the child's right to life? If her daughter's right to not be killed supersedes her right to kill her daughter if she does not want this life to be in her...
We must reach the hearts of women. Every woman has been prepared physically, from the moment her chromosomal composition was established, to bear children. To dismiss this part of her person is to dismiss herself. Why do women have periods? Does God hate them? Did the universe conspire to make them suffer every few weeks or so? Do periods have a purpose, a reason for existence? Yes. Undoubtedly yes.
But I know so many young women who just wish it would all just 'go away'. And they chemically alter themselves to make it so.
Yesterday we watched an informative program on PBS about the disappearing honeybee. Honeybees are suffering what has been named Colony Collapse Disorder. The causes seem to be manifold, including viral infection, pesticide poisoning, and insufficient food sources. If we examine the way we do agriculture, pushing food beyond its intended capacity, demanding greater yields than fruits are capable of yielding-- what are the effects?
To achieve such high yields, agribusiness has chemically altered food. The loss of honeybees mysteriously serves as an alarum: if they can't keep up with our push for greater yields-- we will no longer have food as we know it, because we will no longer have honeybees, nature's #1 pollinator. Anything that depends on pollination to produce = fruit, veggies, cotton, nuts.
The honeybees have simply 'gone away' and science has been trying to account for the loss.
If we continue to use chemicals to make problems disappear, we have abandoned Life. We can tell this to a drug addict, yet we seem unable to tell ourselves. Life hurts. But eschewing the travails of Life mean submitting to a reality devoid of color. Its sucks that honeybees can't keep up with technology. But losing the honeybees means no more red apples or green peppers or blueberries. Eschewing the travails of Life leads to dark depression and dark choices. Making periods go away means no more children.
What else does chemical alteration in women do? When we chemically impede the natural cycle, what else suffers as the pain becomes more bearable? When we say we are against conception, what does that imply? What does it mean when we tell a woman she is 'at risk of pregnancy'? Pregnancy has become an unwanted side-effect of sex.
Has society been harmed because of this mindset? Have women suffered because they are now sex objects to men, only useful for achieving orgasm? Have men suffered because of it? Women are more. But we have made women less. We have attained the Lowest common denominator. The effects of this choice are far-reaching.