Absurdity of Leftist Argument for Abortion Exposed

There is no way that anyone can morally justify abortion if he or she believes that the being inside the mother is a human life. Once it is accepted that what we’re talking about is a human life, no amount of justification can get around the fact that abortion ends that human life. That’s why nearly every pro-abortion argument starts with the premise that the fetus, or the clump of cells, or whatever you want to call it, is not a human being; it’s not a human life.

That premise does not stand up against the scrutiny of logical argument, but that’s an argument for another time. For this post, I want to talk about an even greater absurdity: the idea that the being within the mother is a human life, yet that human life does not deserve the protection of law. That’s the absurdity that Joe Biden expressed Sunday on Meet the Press.

During the interview, Tom Brokaw asked Biden, “If Senator Obama comes to you and says, ‘When does life begin? Help me out here, Joe,’ as a Roman Catholic, what would you say to him?” In his response, Biden admitted, “I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception.”

When Brokaw started to ask a follow-up question, Biden interrupted him with this rhetorical sleight of hand:

MR. BROKAW: But if you, you believe that life begins at conception, and you've also voted for abortion rights...

SEN. BIDEN: No, what a [sic] voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion.

Now it seems to me that voting “against curtailing the right” and voting “for abortion rights” are the same thing. However, for the sake of argument, let me momentarily accept Biden’s argument that there’s some difference in the two. That being said, the question is still, how can someone believe that life begins at conception, yet be against law protecting that life?

I know the answer that leftists give. It’s the answer that Biden gave Brokaw. He personally believes that the being inside the womb is a human life from conception (he said that he believes it’s a life; I assume that he would agree that it is a human life since it certainly isn’t plant or any other species of animal), and that it is wrong to kill innocent human life (he didn’t actually say that, but I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he believes it’s wrong to kill innocent human life); however, he says that he doesn’t have the right to impose his views on anyone else. Therefore, he opposes any law outlawing abortion.

That argument is the same as a person during the 1850s arguing that he personally believes that blacks are human beings, and that it’s wrong to own human beings as slaves. However, he doesn’t have the right to impose that belief on anyone else; therefore, he opposes any law outlawing slavery.

Before you tell me that this analogy is ridiculous because everyone knows that blacks are human beings, remember that during the days of American slavery, a common justification of slavery was that blacks were not really fully human; therefore, slavery was ok.

It’s interesting that the Republican Party was started in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who opposed the pro-slavery Democrat Party.

The 1856 Republican Party platform said this about slavery:

Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction …

Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism--Polygamy, and Slavery.

In other words, the Republicans of 1856 believed that, as was stated in the Declaration of Independence, all people had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; furthermore, they believed that Congress had the right and, in fact, the duty to protect those rights and to prohibit slavery.

In the same year, the Democratic Party Platform had this to say concerning slavery:

That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences...

So the Democrats of 1856 believed that Congress had no power or right to outlaw slavery, and that any attempt to do so would be interference. They believed that each state had the right to decide for itself whether or not slavery would be legal in that state. The right to liberty of black Americans was completely ignored by the Democratic Party Platform of 1856.

Now, compare the Republican and Democratic Platforms of 1856 to their platforms of 2008.

The 2008 Republican Party Platform says this about abortion:

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

Notice that, just like the Republicans of 1856, who supported the idea that the purpose of government is to secure the basic inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of “all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction,” and who, therefore, believed that Congress had the duty to protect the rights of black Americans, the Republicans of 2008 believe, for the same reasons, that the Constitution should protect the rights of unborn children.

Now look at this from the 2008 Democratic Party Platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Just like the Democrats of 1856, who opposed any and all federal law against slavery, the Democrats of 2008 oppose any and all law against abortion. Just like the right to liberty of black Americans was completely ignored by the Democratic Party Platform of 1856, the right to life of unborn Americans is completely ignored by the Democratic Party Platform of 2008.

If you want to argue that the being within the mother’s womb is not a human life, that’s one thing. As I said before, that argument will not stand up to logical reasoning, but at least you’re trying to argue the pro-abortion case in a logical way. However, if you’re going to say that the being within the mother’s womb is, indeed, a human life, but you still don’t believe that our laws should protect that human life, well, that’s far another kind of argument. That's an argument that defies logic, is absurd, and borders on evil.