Many leftist extremists condemn conservatives as hypocrites for wanting to help rescue women from the Taliban in Afghanistan. They say that conservatives in America are the “American Taliban” because they are pro-life. They say that pro-life is against women’s rights. They say that conservatives don’t care about the “fetus”; they only want to subjugate women. Etc., etc…
It’s my opinion that pro-abortion leftists seem more concerned with protecting a woman’s right to kill (her unborn child) than they are about protecting a woman’s right not to be killed.
It seems obvious that it’s much more noble to be more concerned with protecting a woman’s right to not be killed. It’s much more honorable to be more concerned with a woman’s right to be treated equally and with respect.
As far as I know, not many laws say that a person has a right to terminate the life of another person unless, of course, it’s a misguided law supporting abortion.
Laws supporting abortion are based upon the premise that an unborn human is not a “person.” They say that an unborn human child is not yet a person because the unborn child is not “viable” outside the womb.
The following is an excerpt from a scientific article titled: Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus. *
“In light of the biological evidence and philosophical arguments discussed herein, it is most reasonable to support the notion that personhood status is present at the point of human fertilization.”
Since leftist progressives claim to love and respect science, here’s another excerpt from the article referenced above that scientifically supports the personhood of an unborn child just after fertilization:
“Egli et al. (2011) show that the zygote genome is crucial for prenatal development and that this is unique to humans versus another mammalian species. The study also suggests that the developmental potential of the human zygote genome is unique in some respects from that of the murine zygote genome. Furthermore, the uniqueness of the human from the murine zygote genome likely extends to other mammalian species and other human cell types in its totipotent and pluripotent properties for early human development. There are features of the zygotic DNA that are unique to the development of a human organism.
While some believe that humans are distinct from other animals due to attributes of self-reflection, cognitive sapient awareness and advanced reasoning, there are also fundamental distinctions in the biology of humans that stem from initial development at the one-cell stage. One could thus propose that certain features appearing in embryogenesis and fetal progression that are uniquely human (i.e., cognitive sapient awareness) are uniquely reliant on human zygote DNA (and its division and subsequent development). This argues strongly that the human being at the one-cell stage already possesses the status for personhood.”
In light of the obvious, along with the conclusions from the scientific article, let’s review what the U.S. Constitution has to say about the rights of a person:
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirms (in part): “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Shouldn’t the 14th Amendment apply to a person who is alive in the womb? Doesn’t the 14th Amendment’s right to life—and the right to privacy in the Due Process Clause—apply to a person of any age?