- On October 29, Joe Carter at EO (point 5) takes note of the 50 millionth abortion in the US happened this year. I previously ran some of the numbers.
- Point 19 (from the same post), has some interesting speculation on what an abortion museum might look like. One might hope our ancestors will be so enlightened. The pessimist/cynic ("I prefer the term, artificial person" - err, I mean realist) in me says we might not for some time. If we get a Democratic president in '08, it could be another twenty years before the Supreme Court could swing back around. And what would it take to get a definition of life amendment to the Constitution? And why are there no anti-death Democratic presidential candidates?
- Point 31 - Begins the talk on the science of abortion.
- Lot of points for Joe!
- Then on Nov 4, some dude named Garry Wills mumbled about how abortion is not a theological issue. Wills thinks it is rational question. He's wrong, read Exodus 21:22-23. But I like the rational approach, so I will address that.
- On Nov 5, Albert Mohler and Carl Olson jumped on Wills. But they didn't address the science of the matter.
What is the miracle proposed by the pro-choice crowd?
What do you do when the science says that an embryo is a human being? You can use the term, "clump of cells", but someone might ask, "Whose cells are those?" - certainly not the mother's or the father's. Others may cry, "Why not weep over lost hair or skin?" But your hair and skin are adult, differentiated cells. And they are not all of you, the "clump of cells" killed in an abortion are 100% of some new human being.
Simple solution, declare that rights follow from personhood. What is personhood? There's no scientific measure, so it's up to philosophers. And none of them can really agree, but the trend seems to be towards whatever gives enough flexibility for abortions to continue.