Wantedness of a child often determines protection under law
Many people argue that abortion (and euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide, etc.) is ethically permissible because it is legal. This argument not only fails historically (ethnic cleansing was legal in Nazi Germany, for example), but science itself also contradicts the logic that legal equals ethical. Many laws, and to some degree Roe v. Wade itself, are based on “science” that is poorly supported and in many cases outdated. In light of all we know today about the science of embryology, fetal development, and fetal pain, there is in reality no scientific support behind pro-abortion legislation.
Online for Life, an organization that saves pre-born children from abortion through search engine optimization (SEO) and pairing pregnant mothers in crisis with nearby resource centers, explains the shocking truth that it is federally permissible – and legal in nine states – to kill a pre-born child who has achieved 40 weeks of development: Even at 40 weeks’ gestation – the age at which an unborn child is considered fully developed – abortion remains legal in nine states! This means that a mother can abort her child at any time up until the day he would naturally be born alive.
In the Pro-Life movement, we know that all innocent life is sacred and worthy of protection. To us, the travesty of killing a newly-formed baby through abortifacient “contraceptives” or the dangerous RU-486 abortion pill is the same as that of killing a baby on his or her due date. And this belief is grounded firmly in science, which affirms the utter humanity and potential of every nascent human life regardless of the child’s stage of development in utero. An extension of this understanding is the fight for their equal protection under the law.
Laws punish murderers and recognize murder as the willful taking of an innocent life. These laws are based on the ethical principle that it is unjust to take the life of a person who did not threaten the aggressor’s life. In a void of reason, however, legislation in almost every US state – and on a federal level – has failed to recognize the protection owed to innocent lives that are pre-born children. Via a bizarre exception, however, murderers are guilty of double homicide when they kill pregnant women. Murderers are also punished when they kill the wanted unborn child of a mother. But, where the pre-born are concerned, ‘unwanted’ has become synonymous with ‘inhuman,’ and therefore undeserving of protection from murderers, as we see in the case of legal abortion.
In legal abortion, scientific evidence is contradicted. Ethics are contradicted. Legal precedent is contradicted. Wantedness becomes the sole arbitrator over life and death, and the law turns a blind eye to the murder of scientifically demonstrable innocent human beings.
Texas has begun to turn the tide on this trend, however. HB 2’s most important achievement was to begin the process of reconciling science with legislation where the pre-born are concerned. The process of passing HB 2 involved demonstrating the very clear science behind fetal pain, which clearly reveals that pre-born children are neurologically developed enough to feel the agony of a late-term abortion. Protecting pain-capable babies from the excruciating pain of abortion was a step toward the ultimate goal of aligning all fetal science with corresponding ethical legislation. Prohibiting the abortion of pain-capable babies was one step toward showing Texas – and the nation – that science should never be the victim of a botched legal system; science should be the primary evidence on which we write our laws.