There was a silly hypothetical question floating around a few weeks back about abortion that apparently “nobody” could answer. Because, ya know, these answers by Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are not good enough.
It concerned a hypothetical choice between saving a child and saving a test tube full of embryos in a burning fertility clinic. You could only choose one, not both, or else you’d all die!! – Because that’s how reality operates and all.
It was taken apart fairly easily by many people as it relied on circular logic only suitable for really young children, heroin addicts and leftists. But it brings up another all too common argument, that a “test tube” embryo is the same thing as an embryo inside a womb. And that, apparently hypocritical, pro-life campaigners never say anything about the discarded embryos from these scenarios or the ones from stem cell research.
What Are Rights?
Let’s ignore the fact that this is a question that needs to be addressed by the nations in which it actually occurs, and not the people of Ireland, a unique life embracing culture of artists, poets, saints and philosophers, and move onto the “right to life” part of this argument that leftists are pointing their crooked, wart covered finger at and screeching “What about that!”. Specifically, the point that a pregnant woman has the right to destroy an embryo just as much as a lab has to discard of a test tube containing one or multiple embryos.
To do that we have to look at “Rights” in an Active Vs Passive light. As in, does a right exist without the active contribution of another, or does it require a contribution of another or a group or a law, to be maintained.
You don’t have a right to a job for example because nobody should be forced to provide this to you. You do however have the right to seek and secure employment of your choice because the prevention of this would require a law or the effort of another. All anyone has to do in this situation is… Well… Nothing at all.
With pregnancy, a woman will usually remain pregnant as long as she continues doing as she has always done. Eating, drinking water, breathing clean air and sleeping. The right to life for the embryo in this case is a passive one. It requires nothing except the status quo.
The right of the mother to destroy this life on the other hand, is an active one. It requires not just permission by law, or the non-interference of “The Patriarchy” (as is so often put forward as an argument in an attempt to reshape this act as a passive right actively prevented by an toxicly masculine acting agent), no, it requires the actual physical interference with and destruction of the passive right of another. It requires compliance with and the enablement of the violation of the passive rights of another.
A right that requires the doing of something to another in order to manifest itself in reality, and which results in the destruction of their very existence, surely should be a second degree right in comparison to the passive right to life, if even a right at all. It really suggests a certain type of non-personhood for the feotus, at least until it’s umbilical cord is severed and it’s diet intake valve is reassigned up a few inches to it’s esophageal entrance. (I’m using this mechanical language purposefully).
What IS Life?
That’s the next question then isn’t it. One that really needs to be answered first. When does personhood, and the passive right to life that comes with that, get assigned to a person? That is a foundational principle of western civilisation after all, the inherent value of a person, and the basis for almost all of our laws.
So shouldn’t it be by default at the moment that the life itself begins to exist?
Or as Ben asked in the link at the start, at which of these stages of development should you be allowed to kill it?
And from there, why is it the State that decides this point? Are they experts in the field of Life itself and the very nature of Being? It seems very metaphysical for a secular group of career conmen to deal with. Philosophical almost.
The reasons why the creators of the constitution added this specific protection of the unborn are becoming clear. The constitution of the Republic was designed to protect us from the blind, mindless violence of the masses. Or what these career conmen, death cult feminists and shysters are calling “democracy”.
If we don’t know this answer because philosophy hasn’t figured it out yet, then to err on the side of caution and abstain from walking this dark path is wise here.
To look back one hundred years from now, armed with new knowledge in the subject, and realise what a horrible mistake we made out of ignorance, would be a terrible burden to bear. And we would.
History is littered with errors of judgment where ignorance of a subject resulted in things we are ashamed of, or held to account for now. Slavery, lobotomies for bored housewives, disease spreading by doctors not washing their hands because we didn’t know that bacteria existed yet. All examples of this same ignorance on an important topic.
This current one, and the choice we make on which path to follow, may in fact define us far into the future as either the only torchbearers in a decadent past, or complicit participants in the greatest crime committed against humanity in history.