President Obama recently acted to allow government funding to groups providing abortions overseas. Obama’s agenda (at WhiteHouse.gov) speaks about a “Woman’s Right to Choose” and “reproductive choice”. What about a right to life?
Obama evidently believes that unborn children do not have a right to life. I assume he believes that born children, however, do. So, the question is why does an unborn child not have this right, when a born child does? It seems that Obama, and other supporters of abortion, must believe that simply being born gives us the right to life.
It is not at all clear to me how or why simply being born can or should bestow the right to life. If this is our foundation for the right to life, it is indeed a fragile foundation; it is utterly irrational.
To defend the right to life for all, we must defend the right to life for the unborn. Those who deny the right to life for the unborn, must either also deny the right to life for all, or must admit that they are being irrational and have no basis for denying the right to life for the unborn.
The obvious response to this would be to say that the right to life belongs to those who are self-sufficient, which the unborn are not. However, the newborn is also not self-sufficient. Neither is even a four-year-old. Actually, even I myself am not self-sufficient. I use my set of skills to earn my living, but that set of skills doesn’t include growing all my own food and making my own clothes. If being self-sufficient is the criteria for having a right to life, very few qualify.
Think about it.