Sunday, August 23, 2009

She Will Keep the Baby!

I have to admit, I have no idea who Kourtney Kardashian is. I don't know that I have even heard the name before (does this mean I have been living under a rock?) However, in doing my normalish blog reading I came across this story from People Magazine. There was something very striking about this woman's comments and about the graphic detail in which she describes her situation.

First, it is clear from the statements of both Ms. Kardashian and her boyfriend Scott, that neither is pro-life; clearly they are pro-choice. Yet Ms. Kardashian's comment on her choice is very clear -
For me, all the reasons why I wouldn't keep the baby were so selfish: It wasn't like I was raped, it's not like I'm 16. I'm 30 years old, I make my own money, I support myself, I can afford to have a baby. And I am with someone who I love, and have been with for a long time... My doctor told me there is nothing you will ever regret about having the baby, but he was like, 'You may regret not having the baby.' And I was like: That is so true. And it just hit me. I got so excited"
It seems that for Ms. Kardashian that being unwed caused the question, and that the answer was at least partly that she couldn't justify murdering a young human being, which is to be praised in this culture where women are told that they have the right to play God. Let me just say, Congratulations, you have made a wise choice Ms. Kardashian, your child thanks you.

Now there has never been a truer statement then what that doctor said; regret only comes from murdering your child.

I would like to just put forth, an argument from Scott Klusendorf:

Put simply, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant such that we can say that you had no rights as an embryo but you do have rights today. Think of the acronym SLED as a helpful reminder of these non-essential differences:4

Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.

Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.

Degree of Dependency: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.

In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.

No comments: