Abortion

JMJ. Ok. The question, class, is this--"Under what circumstances is it permissible to end the life of an unborn child?" There are probably close to as many answers to this question as there are readers of it. Only one matters, though. Know whose that is? You're saying to yourself--"Self, I'm not pregnant. This is important to me, why?" Well, I guess it's because this is a litmus test. The answer, like the rings produced by dropping a stone in a pond, carries ramifications far beyond anything we might imagine.

The Democratic Party, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, etc. etc. ad nauseam say that this answer belongs with the mother's choice. Isn't it up to the mother what she does with her own body? Of course it is. Even the Catholic Church would agree with that! The stickler is that she has no right to determine the destiny of the body growing within her. There is another there--her unborn child. And that unborn body should have basic rights as guaranteed by our constitution. When asked point-blank whether an unborn baby has those basic human rights from the moment of conception, Barack waffled. He said that that was above his job description. McCain? He, of course, answered, "yes." A simple yes.

The issue I have with McCain, and with so many protestants (and even, God help them, some Catholics) is that they try to add so many qualifiers. "Well, I'm pro-life but abortion's ok in the case of rape or incest. Or if the baby has physical problems." What? Is this baby less innocent than one born of a loving conception within the confines of a valid marriage? C'mon folks! A baby is a baby is a baby. And it's innocent. God says that we may not murder an innocent being. And I'm on God's side. McCain ain't perfect but at least his party doesn't condone murder as a "woman's choice."