By Rob Meyne
- July 4, 2023
- 5-min read
Many critics of the Dobbs decision observe that life is now harder and more emotionally challenging for people who want abortions. Well, yes, it is. See again the article from Vice, here.
The question is this: how much do stories of the unfortunate aspects of this, or any, Supreme Court decision matter, and based on what values structure? If the issues discussed in Vice are all that matters, of course you would oppose Dobbs. If, however, you cared as much or more about ALL human life, at all stages of its development, you would have to support Dobbs.
And, BTW, it IS that simple.
Is ANY sad or painful result of a law a negative? Strictly speaking, sure. Every law has plusses and minuses. No exceptions. But telling only one aspect of a story, or looking only at one perspective, is comparable to a jury only hearing from the prosecution. It is interesting but hardly conclusive.
How persuasive such arguments are depends entirely on the standards, the foundational values against which you evaluate them. IF the happiness and emotional health of women who have already been born is the only thing that matters of course you would oppose Dobbs. IF, however, you value life in all forms, and at all stages of development, you could easily feel empathy for the women described in Vice but STILL support Dobbs, because you value the lives of 60-plus million dead babies more. The arguments of the pro-abortion crowd are persuasive if, and only if, you value the lives of these women more than those of the more than one million innocent lives murdered in the womb every year in America.
In a Constitutional Republic, it is seldom, if ever true, that only the opinions of a select group matter, and it certainly makes no sense now.
Nevertheless, some people believe the dispositive issue is what effect abortion law has on pro-abortion women (those who have been born). That value structure quite literally requires you to believe that the lives of those who “won the lottery,” so to speak, meaning they weren’t killed in the womb, are more valuable than the lives of those not allowed to be born.
And, let’s be clear about this. Babies/pre-born people/whatever you want to call them are living humans. Period. There is no serious debate about that. The argument that they are not human would be, well, what? Unborn humans are humans just like unborn dogs are still dogs. It is so clear, and logical, that people are embarrassed to even defend an alternative viewpoint.
To make the point even clearer: Democratic leadership in Washington DC, including the president, favors unlimited abortion, at any point. (Biden was asked in 2022 if there should be any restrictions on abortion, and said no.) They support policies like in Minnesota, where you can walk in during the ninth month of pregnancy and say, “get rid of it,” kill it.
What possible argument could be made that a baby in the 9th month isn’t a human? If you just remove it, the child will likely grow up to live a normal life. It is inarguably human, yet the leadership of the political party in power thinks killing them is ok. The key issue for our time on this subject is NOT rather the baby is human and alive – indisputably, it is – but why abortion supporters would think killing them is fine.
There is no logical argument that babies aren’t people. None. What would it be? How would you prove a baby isn’t human? Of course, you can’t. To be fair, we generally can’t prove a negative. (You can’t prove you’ve never been to Australia.) But the question remains: If they aren’t human, what are they? Iguanas? Sloths? Hummingbirds? Lesser pandas?
A human life is human from conception, just as a bald eagle is an eagle from conception. Of course, destroying an eagle’s egg is a federal crime. Eagles are loved and protected. Humans are not. Horrifically, destroying a person at an early point is legal and celebrated by about half our population. An eagle in the early stages of its life gets protection your children do not.
