I think that the abortion question, about when the unborn becomes a human or not, stems historically from the farce of evolutionary scientists (Ernst Haeckel, Stephen Jay Gould, etc.) that upon conception of the egg the early phases and development of human life in the womb resembles closely that of a fish, an amphibian, a primate, and the rest of the evolutionary steps leading to humans. This leads to the conclusion that the young fetus is in essence the same as a fish or an amphibian, and is therefore equal in value and can be aborted without moral concern. This argument has virtually been laughed away I believe in the scientific world, as well as the civil discourse world, but I feel the heart of the argument is still being pushed in the same circus of a debate between the left and right, by the new tactic involving avoiding addressing the question anymore. Why, have we reached a national consensus on it? Are we closer to solving the problem? Is there a question that precedes this one in urgency? Perhaps there is. Instead, the real question is being skirted and dealt with very diplomatically (read: political cowardice). Obama says the question is "above [his] paygrade." (in Rick Warren’s “Civil Forum on the Presidency” August 16) What a cop out to an honest and necessary question. There is no one on this planet that doesn't have an opinion on abortion; why can't he just answer the question? All for the sake of avoiding division I presume. How freaking spineless can you be? I don't get it.
The pro-choice culture’s opinion about abortion has the same stance it has since the days of Roe v. Wade, but completely lacks in its argument now that this evolutionary-type answer has been discarded, showing its ridiculousness. The position is still the same: abortion is morally okay. But there is no longer any substance to back it up. Not that there ever was much.
Posts
