Posted by
Elias Rostad on Monday, September 22, 2008 7:09:39 PM
Thought I'd post my column for the Exponent here as well as the print version until we get the online version of the Exponent going.
So, without further ado, here is my column that will be out in print tomorrow, September 23, 2008.
The Only Question that Matters
By Elias Rostad
At the beginning of the 19th Century, William Wilberforce argued before the House of Commons in England in the defense of the equality of the slaves that were being traded through the British Empire. His arguments came to fruition in 1807 with the passing of the Slave Trade act which outlawed the trade of slaves throughout the British Empire with the understanding that slaves were to be given equal rights under the law.
The basic moral principal in this case, and many other throughout history, is as follows: human beings should be granted equal protection under the law. No matter the color, size, shape, race, creed or religion, all men are created equal. That there is a basic humanity in all of us that says that we should all be protected from the taking of property, illicit or illegal torture, and the taking of life indiscriminately: protections from these have been given to us because of our humanity by Natures God and should be granted to us under the law in a just society. A just society protects the innocent against those who would violate those basic civil rights granted to all human beings.
The irony is that the most innocent among us are in danger in the most vulnerable place imaginable - the easiest and most socially acceptable time to kill a child is in the womb of her mother. However, if the child were inches away, at her mother’s breast, the very same act would be considered villainous.
If the question is ‘Can I kill this?’ then the obvious follow up question must be ‘What is it?’ and only with the answer to that question can the first be adequately answered. If the unborn is a human being, even a potential human being, then that human being has certain rights that all other human beings possess. In that case, no excuse for abortion is adequate to the consequences.
However, if the unborn is not a human person (as there is no question as to whether or not it’s a human being) then no excuse is necessary. If it isn’t a human being then it does not possess any such rights and therefore has no protection under the law.
What makes a person? This is a question that has been asked throughout history as well: by the National Socialists in Germany during the 1930’s and 40’s, by the British slave traders and by any number of groups who have committed the act of genocide against another group of people. If there is some dividing line between humans we can’t kill and humans we can kill, I would contend that the line needs to be very clear.
Let’s find that line. Location doesn’t seem to matter, nor does size or color. Intelligence doesn’t seem to change anything either and neither does religion. Dependency and physical viability seems, on the face of it, that it may make a difference, but the question is, if you lost physical ability, would you still be you? If you lost your legs, would you still be you? Your sight? Voice? If you’re knocked unconscious do you lose your value as a person? If you have to go on a breathing tube? Food tube?
If it’s true, that you remain viable despite physical losses and dependency, doesn’t it apply for those around you?
If it’s true for them, isn’t it true for everyone?
Absolutely Everyone?