Joe Giganti
Life is NOT arbitrary; that's the whole point
By Joe Giganti
(Mar. 19) By now many of you are familiar with the news story about the woman from Utah, Melissa Ann Rowland, who is being charged with the murder of one of her preborn twin babies. And at this point, almost all of you have at least heard about the Peterson murders in California, if not well versed in the matter.
For those of you who are not, here are brief overviews:
Medical experts told Rowland repeatedly that if she did not deliver her twins early by Cesarean section, one or both babies would die. Rowland reportedly refused because she did not want to live with the physical "scar" caused by the operation. A nurse present for these events told police that when Rowland was informed that she needed a C-Section, she replied that it would "ruin her life" and that she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that." The result of Rowland's refusal to have the C-section was that the little baby girl twin was born dead. Autopsy results show that had Rowland had the C-section, the child would have lived. Rowland was subsequently charged with the murder of that little girl.
The Peterson case involves the violent murder of Laci Peterson and her preborn son, Connor. The lead suspect is Laci's husband, Scott, who is doing his best to delay the inevitable, which is to stand trial for not one, but two murders.
These cases, and others like them, are sending shockwaves throughout the so-called pro-choice movement. Weary that the long hibernating moral conscience of American society might be roused by such sterling examples of the callous disregard for human life that the abortion industry has fostered in our society, they recognize that these situations might be the smelling salts needed to end this long national nightmare. I hope they are right.
During a recent debate on the Utah matter on the Fox News Channel, former federal prosecutor Lisa Wiehl stated, "Whether you like or not, morals and ethics aside, the law in this country is that a woman has a choice, a woman has a choice in whether or when to deliver a child." A "child," really? Wow, paging Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud, please let Lisa Wiehl know her slip is showing. I now would like to lead you in a polite round of applause for Ms. Wiehl's recognition of what the pro-abortion movement has refused to acknowledge in the past 31 years — it is a child. It is not a blob of cells, not a tumor and — I'm sorry, Lisa — not a choice.
At the heart of the argument against charging Rowland in this debate, and in similar discussions, has been the concern that this makes the whole question of when it's a chargeable offense to take the life of a preborn baby and when its just part of a woman's healthcare choice arbitrary.
Amazingly and for only a brief moment, this is where Ms. Wiehl and I would agree. The entire infrastructure of the decriminalized act of abortion is arbitrary. But that's where the agreement probably ends.
I am all for ending the arbitrary nature of the abortion debate. But to do that one has to wade through the science fiction and rely on the science facts involved in this matter.
The pro-abortion side believes any legal attempt to protect the life of an innocent preborn child to be arbitrary. They will trot out decades-old arguments about it being a woman's body therefore it's her choice, followed by that old favorite: if the baby is not viable outside the womb, it can be aborted. Sometimes, those who have not received an updated talking points memo will dust off that all-time, spun from whole cloth lie, it's just a clump of cells, not a human being. In moments of desperation, they will resort to the "it's the law" argument to defend the indefensible. And they remain particularly fond of the argument that the "right" to an abortion must be preserved for cases where pregnancy threatens the life and health of the mother. These arguments comprise the science fiction involved in this debate and are the core of the arbitrary nature of abortion.
Science fact: A human being's life begins at fertilization, commonly referred to as conception. The moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, a new, distinct, individual person's life has been created. It is at that moment that this new human being's complete DNA code, her lifelong genetic code, is created. While that baby may be growing in her mother's womb, she is not part of the mother; she is her own individual being. This is not just my opinion or based upon a choice made under duress; it is a scientific fact that has been known for over a century. It is the definition found in human embryology and biology textbooks the world over. This science fact dispels the science fiction contained in the first three arguments listed above that pro-aborts use.
OK, so now we know what we are dealing with from the very beginning: an individual human being. What's next?
"It's the law." Part of Ms. Wiehl's quote from above says it all: "morals and ethics aside...the law of this country...." Huh? The purpose of a legal system is to institute a morally just code of ethics and rules that fosters and preserves the order within society. So let's recap. It is a child and the legal decisions that would protect Rowland from prosecution — Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton — lack morality and ethics. What side was Wiehl arguing again?
The fact is, history has taught us time and again that just because something is a law, does not make it moral or just, even if the Supreme Court of the United States says it is. Don't take my word for it; ask Dred Scott.
It was once legal in this country to own another human being. Slavery is never moral or just, but the Supreme Court — like it did in the 1973 abortion decisions — said that it was the legal right of some humans to treat other humans like inanimate commodities to be used, abused, traded and destroyed at the arbitrary whim of that object's master. Thanks to 31 years of the abortion culture, people are once again believing that we have the "right" to treat an entire class of citizens with the same blatant disregard based on the arbitrary nature of human decision making.
Ultimately, slavery was ended in the United States and, using our Constitution as a guide, the newly reunited nation began taking steps to restore the respect and dignity due to all human beings' lives that had been lost under slavery.
If only slavery were a unique example of this kind of abuse. There are many examples throughout our country's history, through and including today, where legal bodies, authorities and parts of the citizenry read "rights" into the Constitution that have never really existed. One of these is the right to arbitrarily decide which human beings have a right to live and which have a right to die. Our Constitution actually states the exact opposite. In its preamble, the Declaration of Independence, it states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The work undertaken by American Life League and other pro-life groups to overturn the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions — to end all forms of abortion and help foster a culture of life in the world — is really an effort to defend the ultimate civil right, the right-to-life. The right to life is the primary civil right. If you are not alive, and your right to merely exist is not defended, you cannot enjoy any other civil right guaranteed you. This is not a war against women; it is a civil rights struggle to recognize something that even Dr. Seuss understood: A person is a person, no matter how small.
No matter who killed Laci and Connor Peterson — or why — it was still the cold-blooded murder of two innocent human beings. No matter the reasons, it does not change the fact that Melissa Ann Rowland's baby died as a direct result of the mother's decision.
In the case of Melissa Ann Rowland, her mental state will undoubtedly be taken into account in the forthcoming court case, as well it should be. No matter the who, where, why or how, Connor Peterson's and Baby Girl Rowland's innocent lives were needlessly ended. As part of a society that considers itself moral and just, the proper authorities are seeking the legal redress to these murders, as is their duty.
Since 1973, more than 41 million innocent children's lives have been snuffed out under a legal (but never moral or just) court decision. In any other situation, the taking of so many innocent human lives would at the least be called murder, if not something far more visually descriptive for carnage of such magnitude. One-third of the generation born after abortion was decriminalized has been wiped out by that very "choice." That's a staggering fact that can even be corroborated by information Planned Parenthood and its research mouthpiece, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, will supply to you.
Once one understands the science facts on which the pro-life movement is founded, and dispels the science fiction presented by the abortion peddlers, it becomes clear that life is not arbitrary; therefore laws that defend it should not be, either. While it is usually a noble attempt on the part of the lawmakers to fight the culture of death created by abortion that give us the fetal homicide laws, we cannot stop at protecting only some of our children. We must always protect all innocent human life, preborn or born.
Another part of our Constitution talks about the need to preserve our newly founded republic for our posterity. Put into common vernacular, the Constitution is saying we need to make the United States a nice place for our children, and their children, to live. We first must ensure that we have a posterity to inherit our country. To do this, we must wake from our apathetic slumber to defend the rights of our children, by demanding that the unjust laws that allow for the murder of any innocent preborn child be overturned.
© Joe Giganti
(Mar. 19) By now many of you are familiar with the news story about the woman from Utah, Melissa Ann Rowland, who is being charged with the murder of one of her preborn twin babies. And at this point, almost all of you have at least heard about the Peterson murders in California, if not well versed in the matter.
For those of you who are not, here are brief overviews:
Medical experts told Rowland repeatedly that if she did not deliver her twins early by Cesarean section, one or both babies would die. Rowland reportedly refused because she did not want to live with the physical "scar" caused by the operation. A nurse present for these events told police that when Rowland was informed that she needed a C-Section, she replied that it would "ruin her life" and that she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that." The result of Rowland's refusal to have the C-section was that the little baby girl twin was born dead. Autopsy results show that had Rowland had the C-section, the child would have lived. Rowland was subsequently charged with the murder of that little girl.
The Peterson case involves the violent murder of Laci Peterson and her preborn son, Connor. The lead suspect is Laci's husband, Scott, who is doing his best to delay the inevitable, which is to stand trial for not one, but two murders.
These cases, and others like them, are sending shockwaves throughout the so-called pro-choice movement. Weary that the long hibernating moral conscience of American society might be roused by such sterling examples of the callous disregard for human life that the abortion industry has fostered in our society, they recognize that these situations might be the smelling salts needed to end this long national nightmare. I hope they are right.
During a recent debate on the Utah matter on the Fox News Channel, former federal prosecutor Lisa Wiehl stated, "Whether you like or not, morals and ethics aside, the law in this country is that a woman has a choice, a woman has a choice in whether or when to deliver a child." A "child," really? Wow, paging Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud, please let Lisa Wiehl know her slip is showing. I now would like to lead you in a polite round of applause for Ms. Wiehl's recognition of what the pro-abortion movement has refused to acknowledge in the past 31 years — it is a child. It is not a blob of cells, not a tumor and — I'm sorry, Lisa — not a choice.
At the heart of the argument against charging Rowland in this debate, and in similar discussions, has been the concern that this makes the whole question of when it's a chargeable offense to take the life of a preborn baby and when its just part of a woman's healthcare choice arbitrary.
Amazingly and for only a brief moment, this is where Ms. Wiehl and I would agree. The entire infrastructure of the decriminalized act of abortion is arbitrary. But that's where the agreement probably ends.
I am all for ending the arbitrary nature of the abortion debate. But to do that one has to wade through the science fiction and rely on the science facts involved in this matter.
The pro-abortion side believes any legal attempt to protect the life of an innocent preborn child to be arbitrary. They will trot out decades-old arguments about it being a woman's body therefore it's her choice, followed by that old favorite: if the baby is not viable outside the womb, it can be aborted. Sometimes, those who have not received an updated talking points memo will dust off that all-time, spun from whole cloth lie, it's just a clump of cells, not a human being. In moments of desperation, they will resort to the "it's the law" argument to defend the indefensible. And they remain particularly fond of the argument that the "right" to an abortion must be preserved for cases where pregnancy threatens the life and health of the mother. These arguments comprise the science fiction involved in this debate and are the core of the arbitrary nature of abortion.
Science fact: A human being's life begins at fertilization, commonly referred to as conception. The moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, a new, distinct, individual person's life has been created. It is at that moment that this new human being's complete DNA code, her lifelong genetic code, is created. While that baby may be growing in her mother's womb, she is not part of the mother; she is her own individual being. This is not just my opinion or based upon a choice made under duress; it is a scientific fact that has been known for over a century. It is the definition found in human embryology and biology textbooks the world over. This science fact dispels the science fiction contained in the first three arguments listed above that pro-aborts use.
OK, so now we know what we are dealing with from the very beginning: an individual human being. What's next?
"It's the law." Part of Ms. Wiehl's quote from above says it all: "morals and ethics aside...the law of this country...." Huh? The purpose of a legal system is to institute a morally just code of ethics and rules that fosters and preserves the order within society. So let's recap. It is a child and the legal decisions that would protect Rowland from prosecution — Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton — lack morality and ethics. What side was Wiehl arguing again?
The fact is, history has taught us time and again that just because something is a law, does not make it moral or just, even if the Supreme Court of the United States says it is. Don't take my word for it; ask Dred Scott.
It was once legal in this country to own another human being. Slavery is never moral or just, but the Supreme Court — like it did in the 1973 abortion decisions — said that it was the legal right of some humans to treat other humans like inanimate commodities to be used, abused, traded and destroyed at the arbitrary whim of that object's master. Thanks to 31 years of the abortion culture, people are once again believing that we have the "right" to treat an entire class of citizens with the same blatant disregard based on the arbitrary nature of human decision making.
Ultimately, slavery was ended in the United States and, using our Constitution as a guide, the newly reunited nation began taking steps to restore the respect and dignity due to all human beings' lives that had been lost under slavery.
If only slavery were a unique example of this kind of abuse. There are many examples throughout our country's history, through and including today, where legal bodies, authorities and parts of the citizenry read "rights" into the Constitution that have never really existed. One of these is the right to arbitrarily decide which human beings have a right to live and which have a right to die. Our Constitution actually states the exact opposite. In its preamble, the Declaration of Independence, it states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The work undertaken by American Life League and other pro-life groups to overturn the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions — to end all forms of abortion and help foster a culture of life in the world — is really an effort to defend the ultimate civil right, the right-to-life. The right to life is the primary civil right. If you are not alive, and your right to merely exist is not defended, you cannot enjoy any other civil right guaranteed you. This is not a war against women; it is a civil rights struggle to recognize something that even Dr. Seuss understood: A person is a person, no matter how small.
No matter who killed Laci and Connor Peterson — or why — it was still the cold-blooded murder of two innocent human beings. No matter the reasons, it does not change the fact that Melissa Ann Rowland's baby died as a direct result of the mother's decision.
In the case of Melissa Ann Rowland, her mental state will undoubtedly be taken into account in the forthcoming court case, as well it should be. No matter the who, where, why or how, Connor Peterson's and Baby Girl Rowland's innocent lives were needlessly ended. As part of a society that considers itself moral and just, the proper authorities are seeking the legal redress to these murders, as is their duty.
Since 1973, more than 41 million innocent children's lives have been snuffed out under a legal (but never moral or just) court decision. In any other situation, the taking of so many innocent human lives would at the least be called murder, if not something far more visually descriptive for carnage of such magnitude. One-third of the generation born after abortion was decriminalized has been wiped out by that very "choice." That's a staggering fact that can even be corroborated by information Planned Parenthood and its research mouthpiece, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, will supply to you.
Once one understands the science facts on which the pro-life movement is founded, and dispels the science fiction presented by the abortion peddlers, it becomes clear that life is not arbitrary; therefore laws that defend it should not be, either. While it is usually a noble attempt on the part of the lawmakers to fight the culture of death created by abortion that give us the fetal homicide laws, we cannot stop at protecting only some of our children. We must always protect all innocent human life, preborn or born.
Another part of our Constitution talks about the need to preserve our newly founded republic for our posterity. Put into common vernacular, the Constitution is saying we need to make the United States a nice place for our children, and their children, to live. We first must ensure that we have a posterity to inherit our country. To do this, we must wake from our apathetic slumber to defend the rights of our children, by demanding that the unjust laws that allow for the murder of any innocent preborn child be overturned.
© Joe Giganti
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
