Logically Lacking: The DNC, Abortion, and the Question of Humanness

By Phil Erwin

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz --Photo Credit Marc Langsam

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz –Photo Credit Marc Langsam

Recently, a reporter asked Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, head of the Democratic National Committee, how she viewed those pesky little packages that Progressives want to guarantee remain eligible for… death. By abortion.

Wasserman-Shultz was asked whether she had considered her own children to be human beings before they were born.

She asserted, “…every woman has the right to make her own reproductive choices.” Hardly a responsive response.

So the reporter pressed. And got the same non-answer. She tried a third time, and Wasserman-Shultz responded that, Well, they’re human beings today.

This conversational moment illustrates perfectly why Progressives should never be allowed to determine public policy on their own. They just can’t overcome their own ideological blindness.

No woman can say precisely when her child becomes human. Many religious people believe it’s at the moment of conception; more secular folk tend to think it’s sometime late in the pregnancy. Abortion “purists” want it pegged legally as the moment when birth becomes a fait accompli – when the baby leaves the mother’s body. But even science can’t today specify the precise moment of “humanness”; and perhaps science never will. And lacking an unambiguous and unimpeachable way to determine the moment at which a fetus becomes human, there is simply no way to know whether aborting any particular fetus is in fact killing a human child.

When does the blossoming aggregation of flesh and fluids, bone and brain, develop what is known historically, spiritually and poetically (though not scientifically) as a soul ?

Everybody thinks they know; but nobody can actually prove they know.

And if a woman cannot even state her own, clear conviction as to when the fetus inside her becomes a human child, then how can she determine whether aborting that fetus is murder, or not?

Wasserman-Shultz is the formal spokesperson for the Democrat Party. Her publicly-stated views carry policy weight. And yet, she cannot even say when her own children became human.

So why should her, or her Party’s, viewpoint determine national policy?

There is more than one logical inconsistency of the Democrat Party vis-à-vis abortion. Their official position is that abortion is legally a woman’s “reproductive right.” A clearer way to state their basic position is this: A woman has the right to abort a fetus because it’s in her body.

This stance ipso facto denies that the fetus has any right to life, which is why Democrats forcefully side-step the question of When does a fetus become a child?   If a fetus is a human being, it’s hard to argue that aborting it is not an act of murder; but if it’s not considered human, then legally, it’s not murder.


Fatherhood  Photo Credit: http://powderroom.kinja.com/

But the Democrat position also denies rights to another human: The father. Saying abortion is a question of “reproductive rights” implies that all reproductive parties involved ought to have some voice in the matter. And the fetus is one-half father; why shouldn’t he have half, or at least some, rights? Saying a woman can abort a fetus at will because it’s her “reproductive right”, and hers alone, is equivalent to stating that a man has no reproductive rights whatsoever.  

What’s the logical, much less the legal, basis for that view?

There was a time in Western cultures when the most precious assets a man could recognize were his own offspring – especially, his sons. The DNC’s official position on a woman’s “reproductive rights” turns that historical norm on its head, completely eliminating any notion of a man’s reproductive rights.   Who decided that was even a valid, much less desirable, societal change?

And if a woman is the sole owner of the right to determine whether a fetus is allowed to become a human child, why then is the man stuck with eighteen or more years of court-guaranteed child support, whether he ever gets to see the child or not?

Our legal system is fraught with inconsistencies and illogical. Nowhere is that more evident than in the legal morass revolving around the fundamental, and fundamentally unanswered, question: When is it really OK to abort a human fetus?

Democrats have effectively short-circuited the question, and any discussion – indeed, any thought about it – by decreeing it all boils down to a woman’s “reproductive rights.” But that way of thinking is lazy, illogical and deliberately misleading. Sure, a woman should have some say in the matter; but so should at least two other equally-involved entities: The father, and the potential human being, a.k.a, the child. And since the child isn’t ready, at that point, to speak for itself, it’s up to society to provide a voice in its stead.

That’s what the legal system is supposed to do.

Allowing abortion laws to devolve to an arbitrarily proclaimed “woman’s reproductive rights” is equivalent to denying the rights of two other involved human parties.

Don’t let the DNC decide this fundamental question for you. Think it through carefully, on your own.

When does a human fetus become a human being?

Whenever that happens, it ceases to be a question of a woman’s rights; it becomes a question of that new human being’s rights – to those most American of ideals: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.


Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness      Photo Credit: WeLoveIt.com


Phil Erwin is an author, IT administrator and registered Independent living in Newbury Park. He sometimes wishes he could support Democrat ideals, but he has a visceral hatred for Lies and Damn Lies, and is none too fond of Statistics. If his writing depresses you, he recommends you visit Chip Bok’s site for a more lighthearted perspective.


One Response to Logically Lacking: The DNC, Abortion, and the Question of Humanness

  1. William "Bill" Hicks March 29, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    There’s no disappointment with what Mr. Erwin says. Regardless of political party, we should all consider lies as anathema to American society. Deceptive rhetoric designed to avoid an honest answer is just a lie; in this case, perpetrated by Waa-Waa Shultz.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *