I’m pro-life not because I’m certain, but because I’m not.
Read his reasoning. You may agree or disagree, but his reasoning is sound.
And that gets me to my more philosophical or principled reason for being pro-life: I just don’t know. I confess that I lack passion about debates over RU-486, Plan B, and other measures that terminate a pregnancy in the first few hours or days after conception, because that’s when I’m least sure that a life is at stake. But when it comes to, say, partial-birth abortion, I am adamantly pro-life. I don’t know if a fertilized egg has rights. But I am convinced that a baby minutes, days or weeks before full term is, simply, a baby. And despite what you constantly hear, Roe v. Wade doesn’t recognize that fact.
He concludes with this:
In death-penalty cases, “reasonable doubt” goes to the accused because unless we’re certain, we must not risk an innocent’s life. This logic goes out the window when it comes to abortion, unless you are 100-percent sure that babies only become human beings after the umbilical cord is cut. I don’t see how you can be that sure, which is why I’m pro-life — not because I’m certain, but because I’m not.
When I read this I immediately thought of the Virginian Pilot which has the typical Liberal position on abortion and the death penalty. For the first, against the second. And the reason they are against the death penalty? Because they argue that we can never be sure.
They are not just inconsistent, they are moral monsters.
No comments:
Post a Comment