By Tom Quiner
The Bronze Brunette comes on strong:
“It is my opinion (and will continue to be my opinion) that every woman should have her right to choose.”
She is a reader of Quiner’s Diner, and I thank her for that. I checked out her blog and share some thoughts from this Canadian college student:
[Human] “abortion is obviously part of that choice, she has a right to refuse pregnancy. Why not just let us live? Why must you impose your moral and religious beliefs on us, when we so evidently want nothing to do with them?”
Let me pause here. She poses the question, “why not just let us live?” The response is obvious. Her fetus asks the same question of her mother: “why not just let me live, Mom?”
The Bronze Brunette then tries to end the debate by suggesting that a pro life position is all about religion.
Religious people can certainly make a credible case for Life on theological and philosophical grounds.
But secularists can make an equally compelling case on secular grounds.
The young lady is defensive about her position:
“But fine, if you want to tell me that I’m a slut to think this is right or that I wasn’t brought up properly, bring it on. If embracing a woman’s reproductive right to choose makes me a slut, I’m one of the biggest whores out there, and that’s the honest truth.”
You know, name-calling doesn’t do anyone any good. I am very saddened, though, by her position which is destructive to at least three people: the mom, the dad, and the child whose life is taken.
She suggests that we can’t impose moral beliefs on others. Since when? Morality is all about distinguishing right from wrong. It is what distinguishes us from animals and bugs.
Down through history, mankind has considered it a moral evil to kill another human being without just cause. So unless the Bronze Brunette is comfortable with the killing of innocent human beings, and I don’t think she is, we are left a very simple question: is the entity a woman carries in her womb a human being?
The Bronze Brunette herself answers the question:
“I will never think it’s killing, because it’s not. I respect women who have had the confidence and respect themselves enough to say, “I’m not ready for a child.”
By using the term “child,” the Bronze Brunette acknowledges the humanity of the human being, the person, in her mother’s womb. And every government on the planet has laws on the book that make the killing of an innocent human being a crime.
Being pro life isn’t necessarily a religious position.
It isn’t necessarily a conservative position.
It’s a human position.
Humans are better than animals because we know right from wrong. And we know that the child (the Bronze Brunette’s word) in the womb has a human mother, a human father, and her own, unique, human DNA.
So we know she is human.
Human abortion on the basis that a woman “isn’t ready for a child” isn’t a reason at all. Killing in the name of inconvenience is not a very human thing to do, especially when there are thousands of parents eager to adopt.
If you think about it, the Bronze Brunette is the same person at conception as she is she is at birth, as she is now, and as she will be when she is 99 years old.
She’ll have the same DNA.
She’ll possess the same human dignity.
She is simply at a different point in her development.
All of her human potential was in place at the instant her parents conceived her.
But the Bronze Brunette appears to be inflexible:
“So again, I will not apologize for my moral and ethical beliefs. If you want to challenge me on this, bring it on. This does not make me a murderer, child-killer, or even a slut. It makes me a liberal, a democrat, who believes every woman should have a choice.”
… every woman, of course, except for the female still in the womb.