The Wrong Kind of Conclusion

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an article called, "The Right Kind of Justice." I don't want to focus on the majority of the piece. But I do want to address a paragraph that classified the basis of abortion as a "constitutional right to privacy." The section below contains this uninformed and false statement.

"The far right's agenda for the court is a frightening one. Activists want a justice who will radically reinterpret the Commerce Clause and other parts of the Constitution to tie Congress's hands, so it no longer has the power to protect people from discrimination, unsafe working conditions and pollution. They want to obliterate the constitutional right to privacy, which is the basis not only for the right to abortion, but also for such elemental protections as the right to buy contraception."

Setting aside the origin of "rights" for the more important question-- is abortion really a matter of privacy? We can't ask this question without asking what it is that is put in private? In other words, "choice" and "privacy" arguments are red-herrings to the status of the unborn. Would my aunt be justified in killing her two sons (Ages 19 and 21) who are mentally handicap--suffering, among many other diseases, from Cerebral Palsy(CP) and Parkinsons Disease, in the privacy of her own home? Surely, we would not argue that privacy dismisses the killing altogether. No doubt some would object, "But the two sons are human unlike the things being aborted." Ladies and gentlemen, if the unborn are human, like the two sons, killing them in private or public is irrelevant. What's relevant is the status of the unborn.

No one is debating whether women should be able to make their own choices-- clearly we should all be pro-choice when it comes to women deciding their own religion, healthcare, husband, and career - to name a few. But some choices are wrong-- like taking the life of a human in the confines of a doctor's office, bathroom, the wilderness, and many other private places. It all comes down to the status of the unborn. What is it? I could be wrong about the unborn, but we need to address this before asserting "privacy" and "choice" were violated. Bring arguments and scientific evidence for your case instead of stating conclusions. I've got an argument to make and evidence to back my convictions. I'm not just emoting or "suppressing women's rights." Can we rightfully exclude the unborn out of the human species? --Not by shouting conclusions back and forth without tackling the first question--What is the unborn?

Cross-blogged at Apologia Christi