Saturday, January 05, 2008

The Paradox Of The Right To Choose




This picture of a 21-week fetus hand reaching up through an incision in its mother's uterus to grab the finger of the surgeon who had just performed a life-saving procedure appeared in the November 16 edition of The National Enquirer.
It should be "The Picture of the Year," or perhaps, "The Picture of the Decade."
The 21-week-old unborn baby is named Samuel Alexander Armas, and is being operated on by a surgeon named Joseph Bruner. The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not survive if removed from the mother's womb.

This picture and the surgical procedure performed puts the lie to the Women's Right to Choose argument that the fetus is not a living person until he/she is delivered.

Before I continue my argument for the Right To Life advocates, of which I am a proponent. I would ask the question to the Feminist advocates. The right to chose what? The question is one of the only Philosophical arguments with a premise that does not explain it's purpose. Is it the right to kill the baby inside her womb?
If so, then why does the criminal justice division of the government consider it a double murder when a pregnant women is murdered?

Apparently Roe vs Wade didn't consider the murder situation when they decided to make the murder of unborn and partially born babies legal. But in the real world, the decisions that dictate a double murder when a pregnant woman is killed. The Fetus is considered a murder victim!

I show the picture of a public hanging in Iran to illustrate the way non-Judeo/Christian Countries demonstrate their disregard the value of human life.Have we degraded our society to the point where the Genocide of unborn children is not a concern?

No comments: