New to PreBorn Americans United? Please read this introduction explaining the first-person nature of this column.
This column will discuss the Supreme Court’s reality-rejecting abortion jurisprudence that authorizes medical professionals (scientists who know exactly when life begins) to kill living human beings when asked to do so by pregnant mothers wanting to kill their own children based merely upon their subjective feelings.
Should a woman have a “right to choose” if she wants to be a mother after becoming pregnant? or
Is a pregnant woman scientifically a mother with a sacred, moral obligation to nurture the living child within her?
1. It is a scientific fact that all human life begins at the beginning — at the moment of conception/fertilization. Where else? And because all human life begins at conception/fertilization…
2. It is a scientific fact that motherhood and fatherhood also begin at the beginning — at conception/fertilization. Therefore, any pregnant woman seeking and getting an abortion is, by simple logic and by scientific fact, a mother. And that is true even after she commits an abortion-homicide against her own child!
While it may be tempting to say that such a person doesn’t deserve the title of “mother,” and while it is technically accurate to describe such a person simply as a “woman,” the intent of using that description is to evade the truth that she is the mother of the child she has killed or is about to kill. It is a dishonest, guilt-evading euphemism that inferentially but clearly admits the knowledge of the heinous act being committed.
Those using such deceptive language argue that “a woman” has “a choice.” The truth that exposes this lie is that that woman, a mother, does not have a choice — she has a sacred obligation to God and to her child to love and nurture him or her to birth and beyond.
Even if our mothers and fathers want to kill us, and even if they are successful in doing so, honesty demands that they should still be referred to as “mother” and “father” both to reinforce the scientific fact of our humanity and to reinforce the truth that they have violated the most sacred, God-ordained relationship between any two human beings: that between mother and child, and that between father and child.
Does life begin at conception?
Yes: 100% (1 Votes)
No: 0% (0 Votes)
Those sacred relationships are not a question of anyone’s subjective opinion about whether he or she wants to be a parent. The belief in such a “choice” is anti-science, illogical and a guilt-evading self-delusion. Accept it or deny it, parenthood begins at conception/fertilization with the new life just created. That is a scientific and a moral reality.
In addition to “mother” and “father” being the more accurate descriptive words, using that honest and scientifically accurate language will confront those mothers and fathers with the truly horrible thing they’ve done, or are about to do, so that they can feel “the sorrow that is according to the will of God [that] produces repentance without regret leading to salvation” (2 Corinthians 7:10).
Those mothers and fathers, hurting from having aborted their own child, can find counseling from most pro-life organizations, but that is the specific mission of Rachel’s Vineyard.
The meaningful remedy for those suffering from having aborted their own children or who regret working in the abortion industry is repentance and God’s forgiveness. See “Biblical Encouragement for Women Healing from Abortion” and “Portraits of Grief in the Aftermath of Abortion.”
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) upheld Roe v. Wade by masking a mother’s “right to choose” to kill her child in purely mystical and subjective terms: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life” (p. 851).
That was followed with: “The destiny of the woman [a mother] must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society” (p. 852, bracketed comment added).
The actual lives of preborn Americans are given the status of untermenschen (subhumans) in Roe and Casey’s two-party judicial equation between a mother’s “right to choose” to kill her child and the state’s “legitimate interest in promoting the … potential life of the unborn” (Casey at p. 870 quoting Roe at p. 882-883, emphasis added).
It is clear that the court’s abortion decisions use “potential life” — in Roe nine times, in Casey about four dozen times — exactly how the Nazis used “untermenschen” to rationalize the Jewish Holocaust. The amicus brief from Texas Right to Life in the recently argued Dobbs case details the malevolence of the term “potential life” on pages 10 to 13.
Regarding subhuman status, an amicus brief from the Pacific Justice Institute states that “it is the mother who treats her aborted fetus as property, and thus as a slave, in violation of the 13th Amendment. Abortion carries with it all the indicia of slavery prohibited by that amendment” (p. 2).
If our child-sacrificing nation is ever to redeem itself and save not only tens of millions of helpless preborn babies but their mothers as well, it must acknowledge and expose this Big Lie by informing absolutely everyone that an abortion-homicide doesn’t magically convert a “pregnant woman” into an “un-pregnant woman.” It just means that she is now the mother of a dead child — a tragedy, not a cause for celebration.
Please respect our 63 million deceased brothers and sisters and continue referring to her as a mother for the sake of her ultimate repentance and forgiveness.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
