First, a pro tip for Tomi Lahren (who I generally think is perfectly fine and good at what she does): if you ever, and I mean ever, find yourself in agreement with Joy Behar on a real issue of debate, then you are wrong. Period, end of statement, no further thought or consideration required.
The movie “300” opens with a scene of a Spartan baby being inspected for defects and a shot of all the baby skeletons over the cliff who failed the inspections before. This is not too far removed from the current liberal belief in aborting down syndrome babies for that reason alone. This rightly offends the senses of most people, and certainly those of us who would call ourselves “pro-life.” But it is important for us to be clear about why this practice, at any level (whether movie myth, eugenicist theory, and utopia, or real life practice of today), is abhorrent, and that is because what it does to us as a society, and not in defense of the baby, per se.
Let us agree that a baby in the womb, or even of a day, or year, or even more, is not self-aware enough to know that they have lived but a short life. For all they know, that is what life is. What we care for, what matters, is the idea of life itself. For humanity’s sake; a culture of life. There are surely all kinds of philosophical and biblical foundations for this, but let us just agree that this either rings true and real to you, or it doesn’t. If it does, if a culture that values and treasures life in a world that inevitably leads to death is all important, then, of course, the life of the baby is paramount. Maybe even more than that of us as self-actualized adults in honor and deference of a baby’s ultimate innocence.The irony in contrast to the liberal who will go to the utmost limits to protect the life of an equally un-self-aware animal and intrude into our life in every conceivable way about much less important
The irony in contrast to the liberal who will go to the utmost limits to protect the life of an equally un-self-aware animal and intrude into our life in every conceivable way about much less important matters needs no further elocution.
Which brings us back to Tomi. I did not follow the kerfuffle over her appearance on that mindless show, but from what I gather, she said she would never have an abortion, but she doesn’t feel like it is the government’s job to intrude. This is the ultimate vacuity and cop-out, and no different than all the wishy-washy “independents” who say some version of the same thing. It is simple: it is not about economics, it is not about a woman’s body, and it is not about the burden on society of “unwanted” babies: it is about life. And once you agree on what constitutes a human life (more on that in a moment), and you agree that a culture of life is a foundation to the very meaning and purpose of life, then everything else is just noise.
We can get into the idea of the importance of the founding documents as the discussion on originalism and the Supreme Court gains steam in the coming weeks, but let’s accept that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are a fairly well-established foundation for what a government should be protecting. That being the case, life is very much the government’s business. Perpetuating the caricature that conservatives believe in no government is helping only the left.
Therefore, ever so briefly, (1) life matters in a humanistic and cultural ethos, (2) one of the primary duties and purposes of a government from both our founding’s principals and a conservative’s world view is protecting all human life, and (3) all that remains is a consensus on when that life begins. Again, briefly, I would like to echo the Ohio plan of a heartbeat as the determining factor. This has many benefits. First, there is a Christian and spiritual link in that one can view the heartbeat as the Holy Spirit entering the body. This is in parallel with death being “called” when the heart stops beating, which can be seen as the Holy Spirit leaving the body. More practically, it removes the issues of rape and incest and even the women’s body to a certain extent (she controls the issue for 10 weeks or so), and makes it about life and personal responsibility (at some point, we cannot cede the issue that actions have consequences and a respect for those consequences must be considered in policy). Inception has a logical basis for life, but it does not have a visceral one. It is just hard to emote on the idea of a group of cells constituting what we think of as babies and human beings. But a heartbeat (and a body and a mind) have that feel in conjunction with a logical and spiritual interpretation. And just because the government’s law stops at a heartbeat, that does not mean one cannot continue to advocate for a higher law outside of the framework of government.