When churches, synagogues and mosques make the distinctions
mentioned above – for both scientific and theological reasons – it is
unscientific and contrary to settled theology to accuse them of political or
theological apostasy. In the imperial Roman world, the Christian Church was
among the first social organizations to oppose abortion. Opposition to abortion
in the year AD 70 was “cutting edge” reform.
The Didache, also known as The Lord's Teaching Through the
Twelve Apostles to the Nations, parts of which constitute the oldest extant
written catechism, dating from AD 70, states: “The second commandment of the
teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not
seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall
not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an]
abortion, nor destroy a newborn child.”
A product of Jewish and early Christian thought, the Didache
set its course against the settled secular culture of the day, which included
the uncontested right of the Roman paterfamilias to determine whether or not a
child should survive abortion or infanticide.
In modern times, science and relatively new technological
instrumentation such as ultrasound both have reinforced the view of the early Christian
Church that the birth process begins at fertilization and ends with a live
child, provided the process is not aborted through chemical or surgical
intervention.
Common sense tells us that mighty oaks from acorns grow,
even though there is a notable difference between an acorn and a full grown
mighty oak. No lucid mind would care to defend the proposition that mighty
whales from acorns grow. Birth is the natural fulfillment of innate human potentiality.
In this perception, science walks hand in hand with theological perception.
The often unstated Didache of Planned Parenthood is that
categorical distinctions may not be made between the fetus any time during the
birthing process and the final birth product. For purposes of law, to continue
the analogy, Planned Parenthood’s operational principle is that the fetus, even
in the late stages of pregnancy, is categorically different than the born child,
the disposable property of the mother; throughout the birthing process the
fetus is little more than a part of the prospective mother’s body, a notion that
is both theologically and scientifically absurd. Visible proof of the error may
be found in ultrasound technology – and why, it may be asked, does such
technology not play a prominent part in birthing classes, abortion centers or
education courses in public or private schools? Are ultrasound videos of the
birthing process made available to prospective mothers unplanning their births
at Planned Parenthood facilities?
Yesterday’s edition of the Hartford Courant tells us “The
state House of Representatives in Connecticut voted overwhelmingly Thursday
night to codify into state law that minors can consent to contraception without
parental notification. After a lengthy debate, the House voted 117 – 27 as four
Democrats joined with 23 Republicans against the measure.”
Connecticut government has yet to consider codifying into
law the “right” of minors to procure without parental notification abortifacients
or surgical abortions – both forms of “birth control,” we are told by Planned
Parenthood, fast becoming a fourth branch of government in the state. However, it has not escaped public notice
that arguments favoring the proposed legislation may also effectively be used –
or misused – to support the position of Planned Parenthood on all forms of
birth control.
The position of Planned Parenthood on abortion may be
summarized as a sort of secular commandment: There shall be no effective
opposition to any form of abortion in Connecticut, however reasonable. Perhaps
the most ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood in the land of unsteady habits
is U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal, often caricatured by
Connecticut Commentary as “the senator from Planned Parenthood.”
“Blumenthal’s fanatical support of abortion and his fierce
opposition to reasonable abortion restrictions is granular,” Connecticut
Commentary noted in December 2021. “He even voted against S.311/H.R.962, the ‘Born-Alive
Abortion Survivors Protection Act’, which provides ‘If an abortion results in the
live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under
the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such
laws.’”
Republican State Rep. Nicole Klarides-Ditria, a Seymour
Republican, said of the bill granting minors the right to purchase birth
control pills without parental notification, “This bill is going to prevent
pregnancies. It is going to prevent [chemical and surgical] abortions … We want
to make sure that our minors have the ability to get the care safely and
without fear of repercussions from anyone … In a perfect world, we all want our
kids to talk to us every day about everything we do. But unfortunately, we know
that doesn’t happen. This bill, I truly believe, will help prevent unwanted
pregnancies, and that’s the most important thing we need to do here today.”
So then, the way to rid Connecticut of the scourge of
chemical and surgical abortions performed on minors is to veto a parental veto,
generally regarded as an effective opposition to a minor’s choice to take birth
control pills. And, of course, if preventing unwanted pregnancies is an
unwavering political good – “the most important thing we need to do here today”
– would it not be as important to offer a like bill affording minors the ability
to procure abortifacients and surgical abortions without parental consent
because “we live in an imperfect world?”
By the way, it is rarely the pregnancy that is “unwanted.”
All women are discomforted by pregnancies. It is the baby, the fruit of the
womb, that is unwanted. And every pregnant woman who has given birth knows that
it is an Orwellian abuse of language to say that a pregnant woman has given
birth to a removed appendix or liver, legitimate parts of the human body.
Comments