"Pro-choice" Indeed!

We never knew before that the American Center for Law and Justice had a TV program, but we happened across it while channel-surfing yesterday afternoon. The topic at hand was human reproduction and -- although we didn't really pay much attention to it -- it did spawn some interesting thoughts.

One of the comments that was made concerned the idea that a fetus was "just a clump of cells" (an argument oft used by the pro-abortion crowd to dehumanize the unborn). Although not directly mentioned on the show (at least, we didn't catch any mention) was the tired old saw that this "clump of cells" was recognizably 98% dolphin or whatever. Again, what the pro-abortion crowd refuses to acknowledge is that it's also 100% HUMAN! That "little clump of cells" will never grown to be a dolphin, or a dog, or a monkey, or a parakeet because the DNA is 100% human. That's all it can ever be.

Libertarians for Life has some great info on the medical aspects of reproduction, as well as abortion.

What the whole show got us to thinking was about how the "pro-choice" crowd is anything but. If they're really all that "pro-choice", why is it that they refuse to allow women to make an informed choice? As we've said before, without choice there is neither virtue nor vice; and the only real choice is an informed choice. Oh, they do throw a lot of "information" at pregnant women, but not only is it rife with their own propaganda and biased distortions, but it also steadfastly leaves out information that a lot of women who have had abortions say they wish they had known beforehand.

Another argument in favor of abortion revolves around the issue of whether or not a fetus is a "person". This, of course, leads us down the primrose path of philosophy. What constitutes a "person" is best left to the philosophers. However, that a fetus is human is medically undeniable. It is intriguing that the pro-abortion crowd insists on using the "person" argument and refuses to acknowledge the humanity issue.

With regard to the religious aspects of the debate, we won't even go there. Don't need to. Even non-religious people (persons?) who are intellectually honest will accept the medical arguments, if they're allowed to know them.

.