Don Surber has hit several home runs recently with articles he has published. One of these was an article about the most basic of human rights, the right to life. As Surber notes, without this right, the rest of rights have no reason to exist.
Surber starts out:
The argument for abortion is lame.
Wendy Murphy of the Boston Herald wrote, “The Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade as soon as its leaked decision becomes final, probably in a few weeks. The ruling will take away fundamental constitutional rights for women that have been in place for 49 years. It’s the equivalent of ruling that black children no longer have a right to go to school with white children.”
No, it is not. Racial equality is expressly in the Constitution. Abortion is not. One would think that an adjunct professor of sexual violence law at New England Law would know that by now.
Murphy said she believes that abortion is a reproductive right and hence, abortion is a right.
But reproductive rights, if they should exist, would help people procreate, not stop it. Abortion takes a human life, which means it cannot be a right because by definition abortion deprives someone else of the most basic of all human rights: birth.
Don hits the nail on the head here. At its most basic level, abortion deprives a person of his/her right to life. Deliberately killing a person is murder. The unborn child being carried by the mother has its own DNA. While it is some combination of the mother’s and father’s DNA, it is separate from and distinct from both the mother’s and father’s DNA. The unborn child is a unique human being.
Surber goes on:
The 14th Amendment recognizes that rights begin at birth. Thus, far from being a human right, abortion is a denial of the first human right, which is life itself. This is done without a judge, jury or trial. The woman alone gets to decide to deny a right to her baby.
From conception, the baby is separate and distinct from the mother with its own DNA. The claim that the baby is her body, her choice is embarrassingly anti-science. As poorly as it is written and argued, even the Roe v. Wade decision made no such claim. In fact, by mentioning viability, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the baby is an individual human being distinct from its mother.
This brings up another issue. Why doesn’t the father have a say in whether the unborn child gets to live or die? The woman has absolute power over life or death in this country at this time. It does not matter that the father may want the child or not.
Whoopi Goldberg’s claim that this decision is between her, her doctor and her child is even more non-sensical. First, how does her child get to vote about living or dying? Second, Goldberg is intimating that the Constitution provides for women to have the right to kill another human being. Just where in the Constitution does this show up?
Some activists for the right to kill an unborn child now advocate for the right of the mother to kill the child at any stage of development including after the child is born. This is insanity on steroids.
The mantra in all of these situations is “You got to leave it up to the woman.” This is what you hear from Democratic politicians when they are pressed on whether any limits need to be in place.
This is depravity of the most extreme kind.
Don Surber touches on some other issues that are worthy of thoughtful review.
You can read his entire piece below