An article was recently published in the Collegian entitled “We all need to respect our right to choose,” in which the author seems to be confused about the moral question of medical procedures.
The column argues that those who support the “March For Life” hold anachronistic authoritarian beliefs condemning an action which ought to be the “choice” of the individual immediately affected, namely the mother of an unborn child. At several points, quite perplexingly, the author reveals a seemingly moral repulsion for the procedure of mutilating and removing piece by piece the unborn child from his mother’s womb.
Antonia Jaramillo, the author, states “Regardless of whether you’d actually advocate for women to have abortions, we must understand that nobody is actually “pro-abortion.” Nobody wakes up in the morning and decides they want to have an abortion that day.” Ms. Jaramillo seems to be confusing abortion with something for which there should be moral apprehension. All over the US, people wake up every day and decide to have moles removed. People wake up everyday and have tumors removed. So why shouldn’t a pregnant woman wake up in the morning and decide she wants an abortion?
As she points out, abortion was declared legal by the Supreme Court, which means that, legally, the clump of cells with a beating heart and his own unique genetic code is not a person. Putting aside the fact that the Supreme Court has declared many things legal which Antonia would not accept so readily (Slavery, Segregation, etc.), why is it that Jaramillo describes abortion as a “difficult decision?” Is having a hip replacement ever described as a “difficult decision?” What about plastic surgery?
Clearly, Antonia Jaramillo has a visceral understanding that abortion is wrong, that in fact an unborn child having his spinal chord cut with a pair of scissors is not on an equal moral plane with removing a wart. If that clump of cells is not just a clump of cells, then he must be a child. And if he is a child, then he has just as much right to the chance at life than any other child. We don’t allow parents to kill their toddlers when they become inconvenient. Why should we kill the unborn?
Now to address an assertion so boldly moronic, I couldn’t even find a way to make fun of it, that protesting against the murder of unborn children is equivalent to protesting FOR slavery. You can disagree that a human fetus, while scientifically alive, is a person. I am fairly certain that you are wrong, and I think Antonia’s desire not to be considered “pro-abortion” belies that some part of her knows that she is wrong, but you could make that statement.
To suggest, however, that those who do believe a human fetus is a person, and who are actively advocating for the basic human right of that child not to be murdered, are somehow denying anyone a right to life and liberty, is simply absurd. All I have to say is Wow… just Wow.