Abor­tion vs. Holo­caust

Watchmen Daily Journal - - OPINION - By Dr. Philip S. Chua

The 6 mil­lion Jews killed dur­ing the holo­caust, geno­cide per­pe­trated by Nazi Ger­many (17 mil­lion to­tal if the other ex­ter­mi­na­tions are con­sid­ered as a part of Hitler's “The Fi­nal So­lu­tion,” be­tween 1941 and 1945) pales in com­par­i­son to the 60,069,971 fe­tuses killed (per choice of the moth­ers or par­ents of these un­born) in the United States alone (about the same num­ber killed in World War II) since abor­tion was le­gal­ized in Amer­ica 45 years ago, on Jan­uary 22,1973, thru Rose v. Wade Supreme Court De­ci­sion. Ac­cord­ing to WHO, there are about 45 mil­lion abor­tion a year per­formed around the world, about 125,000 fe­tuses killed a day.

When I read the ques­tion, “Do fe­tuses have rights?”, on the cover of a U.S. weekly mag­a­zine years ago, I won­dered how some peo­ple could even think oth­er­wise. If the fe­tus is al­lowed to grow and de­velop nor­mally, it will ma­ture to be some­one like any one of us, hu­mans, so why shouldn't he/she have rights, just like any­one of us? I grant you that a fe­tus is not a fully de­vel­oped per­son yet be­cause it is still in the womb and not in­de­pen­dent, just like any­one of us when we were in the womb of our mother, but our an­i­mal pets (and their fe­tuses) who are not even hu­mans and do not even have the po­ten­tials to be hu­man be­ings, are ac­corded their rights and have le­gal pro­tec­tion against cru­elty and abuse un­der the law. Why not the un­born child?

I am sur­prised why there is even a de­bate at all whether fe­tuses should be con­sid­ered hu­man be­ings, and whether we, fel­low hu­mans, should have the right to kill them or not. Le­gally, they are not con­sid­ered a hu­man, an in­di­vid­ual, yet. To me, the is­sue is lu­cidly clear that the fe­tuses, when not killed, could have a “nat­u­rally pre­de­ter­mined” fate, to de­velop into a hu­man be­ing. These are not fruits or veg­eta­bles or any inan­i­mate ob­jects, but fu­ture hu­man be­ings. They have an ac­tive brain, a heart that beats, body, arms and legs that move, just like us. They are liv­ing be­ings.

One of the is­sues be­ing made is that the fe­tus is not a hu­man be­ing be­cause it is in the womb, to­tally de­pen­dent on the mother, and there­fore has no right at all. In other words it does not count! But if a preg­nant mother is a vic­tim of any vi­o­lence or crime, which re­sults in the death of both the mother and the fe­tus, the courts count the “value” of the fe­tus, and if the per­pe­tra­tor is found guilty, he/she could be sen­tenced to, and meted out, “dou­ble” the pun­ish­ment be­cause of the two dead vic­tims. So, why should the treat­ment and re­gard for the value of the fe­tus be dif­fer­ent in the case of abor­tion?

Another ar­gu­ment I find lu­di­crous is the one that says a woman has the right to do what­ever she wants with her body, and there­fore she has the right to ter­mi­nate the life of her child in­side her womb. The fe­tus in­side the womb is not a nor­mal, nat­u­ral, and in­te­gral part of the fe­male body. All the women I know or have read about were not born with a fe­tus in­side her womb as a part of her anatomy. All the rest of her anatomy, her en­tire body and ap­pendages, are there as nat­u­ral parts of her, but not a fe­tus. So how can these pro-abor­tion group claim that a fe­tus is a part of the woman's body, and, there­fore, a preg­nant woman has the right to “cut it out” at her whim, like her hair, or her nails? The woman has the right to mu­ti­late her own body, cut off her limbs, etc., if she so chooses, be­cause those are her own body parts. But the fe­tus is not a nat­u­ral part of a woman's anatomy. It is another life, formed when she vol­un­tar­ily chose to en­able her ovum to come in con­tact with a man's sperm. Rape is, of course, another story.

The fe­tus can't de­fend it­self. It is in the womb, at the mercy of the mother, or par­ents, and of so­ci­ety, mean­ing all of us. All we have to do as a so­ci­ety is to gang up on the pow­er­less fe­tuses, le­gal­ize abor­tion, and al­low ter­mi­na­tion of the life of the un­born ad li­bi­tum at whim. This will also con­fer upon our peo­ple the right to prac­tice ir­re­spon­si­ble sex and es­cape par­ent­hood. If a woman does not want to be preg­nant, she could, and should, pre­vent con­cep­tion. Why even al­low life to start at all and then de­cide to an­ni­hi­late it?

I do re­al­ize the sit­u­a­tion is not that sim­ple and straight­for­ward. But guided by our Chris­tian sen­si­bil­i­ties and sen­si­tiv­i­ties, by our ed­u­ca­tion, by our cul­ture where the fam­ily is the ba­sic struc­ture of our foun­da­tion in so­ci­ety, and the nat­u­ral in­stinct of hu­mans (even of an­i­mals) to pro­tect their off springs, even while still in the womb (that's why there is pre­na­tal ex­am­i­na­tion and other pro­tec­tive mea­sures preg­nant women do to main­tain a healthy grow­ing fe­tus), I am puz­zled why there is even a de­bate on the mat­ter at all.

Free­dom to kill?

Free­dom, in­di­vid­ual rights, and the pursuit of hap­pi­ness are fun­da­men­tal tenets in a democ­racy. The con­sti­tu­tion of all the civ­i­lized na­tions of the world, ours in­cluded, pro­vides and guar­an­tees ev­ery hu­man be­ing the ba­sic free­doms that pro­tect their in­di­vid­ual nat­u­ral rights in the pursuit of a happy, pro­duc­tive, and peace­ful life, re­gard­less of race, color, creed, re­li­gion, gen­der, and age, with­out

deny­ing oth­ers their equal and nat­u­ral rights.

The ev­er­last­ing con­tro­versy in the abor­tion de­bate re­ally hinges on the de­nial that a fe­tus is a hu­man be­ing, and on the mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tion of the word free­dom. The pro-choice group (who, ac­cu­rately, should call them­selves proabor­tion, but who prefers to be called pro-choice to hide be­hind a po­lit­i­cally cor­rect name) be­lieves that the free­dom un­der the con­sti­tu­tion means the right to do what­ever one chooses, and in this case, ob­vi­ously in­clud­ing the right to kill. That is, of course, bla­tantly ab­surd, lu­di­crous, and un­con­sti­tu­tional, not to men­tion im­moral and sac­ri­le­gious. The free­dom and right to choose, as guar­an­teed us by our con­sti­tu­tion, gives us the lib­erty to ONLY do what is right, proper, eth­i­cal, moral and le­gal. Free­dom does not mean the lib­erty to do any­thing one wants to do, even abridg­ing the rights of oth­ers, like killing the weak, the sick, or even the hope­less and ter­mi­nally ill, and ex­tin­guish­ing the life of the in­no­cent, frag­ile and pow­er­less fe­tus. Mu­ti­lat­ing a liv­ing fe­tus for ex­pe­di­ency, cut­ting them into pieces and crash­ing their skull is never a part of our free­dom nor a right of any­one.

The un­born did not force its mother to have and en­joy a care­free, care­less, un­pro­tected sex. IF the death “penalty” is at all war­ranted and needs to be meted out to one of them, it should be to the guilty per­pe­tra­tor(s) and cer­tainly not to the in­no­cent vic­tim, the fault­less and de­fense­less un­born.

I hon­estly do not un­der­stand how some ob­vi­ously in­tel­li­gent and ed­u­cated fam­ily peo­ple, who value their rights, and are vig­i­lantly fight­ing for those rights, can un­con­scionably de­prive and deny the help­less fe­tuses their rights? I won­der how any mem­ber of the pro­choice move­ment would feel if she/he were the tar­geted fe­tus in the womb?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines

© PressReader. All rights reserved.