Roe v. Wade, Considered

The anniversary of legalized voluntary child killing brings a rather profound irony. Our culture knows many times more about the development of a human than it did in 1973, so we can no longer say an unborn child is a mass of tissue. But what is glaringly out of balance is our society’s passion for protecting individual rights, to the point of not weighing the individual right against the common good, but for those whom we deem to be non-persons, we have no qualms at all about killing them for no more reason than we want to.

About humblesmith

Christian Apologist & Philosopher
This entry was posted in Culture, Morality. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Roe v. Wade, Considered

  1. Grundy says:

    When you say we protect individual rights against the common good, what do you have in mind?

    • humblesmith says:

      Our laws are set so that the courts have little regard for how many guilty are set free, as long as no innocent are convicted. We allow one person to benefit from a product that does not say to remove the baby before collapsing the stroller, regardless of how much it costs many companies to label the products or the jobs impacted by this type of thinking.

      Please don’t misunderstand….I’m not saying these things are wrong. I’m just saying our society does not, in general, tell an individual that their pain and suffering is inevitable for the common good.

  2. rosross says:

    No man has ever been pregnant so no man should have the right to say if a woman should or should not terminate a pregnancy. Neither should any woman who has not been pregnant or given birth.
    Given the terrible suffering and death before abortion was legalised, no person of conscience could ever want a return to those days. The best outcome is where women who are pregnant and fear their ability to raise the child should be given as much support as possible, either to continue the pregnancy and raise the child or to terminate the pregnancy.
    It is ironic that a country which has waged countless wars around the globe for decades and killed millions and continues to kill, many of them babies and children, should be the one developed nation which has now developed an irrational phobia about abortion.
    In the best of worlds no woman would abort. In the best of worlds no child would live in poverty. In the best of worlds every child would grow up with its biological parents and those parents would be loving. In the best of worlds there would be no war. We don’t live in the best of worlds and that means we have to make the best of the world in which we live. While the sacrifice of a child is to be mourned, sensibly, as the Japanese do, there is no doubt that a society without abortion creates more death, suffering and misery than one with it.

    • humblesmith says:

      As I said, and you have demonstrated, we focus tremendously on the rights of individuals, but then turn right around and allow some to be killed for no more reason than we want to.

      You are correct about the horrible things you mention….they are indeed horrible. Fortunately, in the case of unwanted pregnancies, we have both God’s promise to take care of the needs of those who submit to Him, and many people who will stand in line to pay all expenses if they can adopt the baby.

      We do not live in the best of worlds. But we could make it a little better if we did not allow the most innnocent of us to be killed voluntarily.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s