In observance of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I will hold off on Part 2 of my discussion on whether the Novus Ordo Rite embodies Deus solus until a later time. At this time, I would like to state the case why abortion is truly the ultimate form of discrimination. The dictionary defines discrimination as ” treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group,class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.” Clearly, abortion advocates make an unfavorable distinction against the unwanted unborn based on the fact that they are unwanted and unborn. In other words, to be aborted in this country at the present time, you usually have to be both unwanted and unborn.
Unwanted as enough reason to murder?
Presumably, no abortion advocate in this country would yet argue that a wanted unborn child should be forcibly aborted. I say “yet” because, as we all know, there is evidence of forced abortion by the state in countries like China. One may assume, unfortunately, that continued extension and twisted justification of the right of the state to allow abortions could eventually lead, as it has in China, to all forms of even more detestable rationalizations for abortion in any society which argues that the state knows what is best for its citizenry. Not accidentally, this argument is often at the root of many Democratic and liberal policies and, also not coincidentally, Democrats and liberals are usually ardent supporters of abortion. Thus, being unwanted is a critical requirement for ending up dismembered, chemically burned, or poisoned in a trash can of Planned Parenthood.
Would anyone in their right mind argue that we should be allowed to kill unwanted people? Is that not what the Nazis did? Suppose the powers that be decided that the homeless, poor, or sick are unwanted, or burdensome. Should said powers then be allowed to go around shooting or beheading such people to get them of out society’s hair? Of course not, although, again, such evils as euthanasia and health policies which treat the sick and elderly as less worthwhile recipients of health care are certainly a step in the direction of the kind of madness that the Nazis displayed with great ease.
Having shown that, thankfully, we have not yet reached the moral cesspool where being unwanted is enough reason for being killed, it has to be accepted that legal abortion requires yet another unfavorable distinction to pass this society’s twisted legal muster.
The Unborn Requirement
In order to be disposable by abortion in this country, one has to be not only unwanted but, more importantly, unborn. Being born, of course, means that one has not yet been born. Again, we have an unfavorable distinction being made based on the class belonged to rather than on individual merit and considerations, so making an unfavorable distinction against any person or thing based on that person or thing not yet having been born is clearly discrimination.
Discrimination is Usually Illogical
If there is one thing we can argue about most cases of discrimination, it is that such cases usually illustrate a glaring lack of reason and logic. It is absurd, for example, to argue that a Latino female cannot be a great doctor simply because she is Latino and/or a female. Similarly, saying that African-Americans cannot enter certain professions simply because they are African-Americans would justifiably be widely seen as a detestable and logically pathetic illustration of ignorance. If society is so quick to revolt against the above examples of bias propped up by pathetic logic, then how can that same society even dare to defend the heinous evil of abortion? Clearly, those who defend and even support abortion dare to do so by propping their case on the most flimsy logic possible. Sadly, the popular media and others supporting abortion give themselves and others a waiver on logic in order to justify this drivel.
The Logical Absurdity of Abortion Defenders
Abortion supporters generally present a number of arguments in favor of abortion which have about as much logical depth as a drunk attempting to solve a moral dilemma. These pathetic arguments and their logical weaknesses are as follows:
1) Abortion is a Private Matter Between a Woman and Her Doctor……Can I kill someone in the privacy of my home or with the help of a doctor? Of course not!
2) Poor women who cannot afford a child should not be forced to support one……If I lose my job and cannot support my kids or wife, can I kill them to cut costs? Absurd!
3) Victims of rape should not be forced to have a child which reminds them of that nightmare………Can a woman kill a co-worker who reminds her of her rapist? Kidding right?
4) The unborn is not a human being…………………This claim is contradicted by modern embryology as well as countless experts in that field, and is usually really saying that the unborn is not yet a human being. However, as many pro-life experts argue, if you took a photo of a once-in-a-lifetime event that could change your life using an old Polaroid camera and I ripped up that photo before it developed, you would likely become enraged and yell something like “Hey, you destroyed my photo of a rare once-in-a lifetime event!!!” It is, conversely, unlikely that you would either say “Oh, too bad, what you destroyed was not yet a unique photo anyway” or “Hey, you ripped up my blank photo!” The point is, the photo was developing on its own and only needed time to become what it was destined to be, just as unborn child is! This contrasts with a few parts of a car or computer which cannot become a car or computer from themselves but need an outside addition of more parts. Given time, the blank Polaroid will become a unique photo of rare event and the unborn child will become a unique person. Given all the time in the world, the steering wheel, motor, transmission, and glove compartment, however, will never become a car unless someone adds more parts.
5) The unborn may be human, be it is not a person…..At its core, this “person hood” argument, which has been identified by many as the core of the abortion debate and, not coincidentally, the greatest weakness of the pro-abortion side, is really saying that the unborn have less rights than the born because, as philosopher Stephen Schwarz and others point out, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. In fact, the only difference between that embryo you were and you today is based on size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. However, would we argue that smaller people have less rights than bigger people, that young girls have less rights than fully developed women, that the mentally retarded or physically challenged have less rights than others, that people in Alabama have less rights than those in New York, or that people who need a respirator or wheelchair have less rights than those who do not need these things? Of course not, and to do so would represent, you guessed it, the kind of absurd and heinous discrimination that many of the very same people who scream in support of abortion rights rail against the next day.
We live in a society which proclaims to be intolerant of all forms of discrimination, which protests even the slightest hint of bias against people based on who they are or what group they belong to, which twists into a pretzel with even the smallest appearance of profiling against certain groups. We define discrimination as a great evil, and pretend to be crusaders against this evil on every level. Despite this, we are living in a society which allows the unborn to be slaughtered under the most pathetic, the most absurd, the most repugnant rationales ever concocted by human beings with a working ( I presume) brain. Like all forms of discrimination, these rationales are weak and flimsy. Like all forms of discrimination, these crimes should not be tolerated in a sane society. Do we allow women to become prostitutes because they have a right to do whatever they want with their body? No, because we argue that prostitution victimizes these women and others. Despite clear evidence that abortion increases the danger of breast cancer, of subsequent depression, and other harms to the woman, the popular media and its abortion allies continue to paint abortion as a great and noble element of women’s health. Despite the logical absurdity of the abortion argument as noted above, these forces continue to paint abortion as a virtuous and logical defense of women’s rights. Like all discrimination, abortion is nothing more than blatant ignorance justified by illogical absurdity painted as a societal and even moral right and good.
At the end of the day, abortion, like all form of prejudice, can only exist where there is a moral vacuum between what what we ought to do and what we want to do. For too long, and in too many ways, we have been brainwashed into thinking that, if we come up with enough excuses, we can excuse anything. For too long, and in too many ways, we pride ourselves morally superior of ancient societies that sacrificed humans to appease their gods. Simply put, we have no right to dress ourselves in the garb of moral arbiters for any society, modern or ancient, so-called enlightened or backward, good or evil, until we remove the plank in our eye which is this most ultimate discrimination of all.
Copyright, Gabriel Garnica 2011