The Moral Blind Spot Continues

So the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act last Monday by a 51-46 vote (it required 60 votes). According to this article at LifeNews, 2 of the 46 votes against were from Republicans, so 44 must have been Democrats unless some Independents were in the mix. If Republicans are not the party of life, then I can’t think of a substantial political party that is closer. If the Senate had 100 Republicans, do you think it would have pasted? No party is perfect, but where does the data lead?

Part of the argument was that a fetus past 20 weeks is “pain capable”, so this makes it wrong to rip it out of the womb and throw it in the medical waste bin. We shouldn’t think a human being needs to feel pain in order to be a considered a legal “person”, but actually voting to keep these late-term abortions going should give us pause. How can supposedly rational people be pro-choice and recognize science, reason and human rights all at the same time? To be pro-choice one must “abort” science and/or reason and/or human rights. In fact, this is such a harsh contradiction; one can see a need for a diabolical force to help the pro-choice movement along; something to help generate a moral blind spot.

Scientifically, human life begins at conception as an objective and observable fact. To say the first stage of one’s life (or one’s personhood) begins at some other threshold of consciousness or viability is subjective; a matter of opinion. To declare something as important as this on something subjective is irrational (and devious), especially when an objective and observable beginning point clearly exists. Where does the data lead?

In contrast, can anyone name the scientist who discovered that an unborn human baby is actually a “non-person”?  Of course not; there is no such scientist and there is no such science. I would ask again “Where does the data lead?”, but there is no data. Once past the freedom from religion objections and someone is shown how deviously subjective and unscientific the legal term of “non-person” is, the real issue of Human Rights can finally be discussed.

As a side, I wonder how many people will kneel during the National Anthem at the Super Bowl this Sunday. They kneel because they believe certain injustices are happening in this country. Should Catholics and Christians kneel during the Anthem for all the aborted children? I’d say no, because it disrespects the Nation as a whole, but at least it would be for a real injustice that is actually still legal.

More to explorer


  1. We need to elect more pro-life Republicans. “Pro-Life” democrats basically lie (see Sen. Bob Casey Jr, D-PA).

  2. Personhood is not a scientific question per se. When human life biologically begins is a scientific question, and it has been answered conclusively at conception. The legal question then becomes what human life is worthy of protection (or more precisely, at what stage of development is human life worthy of protection?). Most, but not all, pro-aborts try to skirt the question by asking the false question of when life begins, which is similar to does it feel pain? What does it matter if it feels pain? If I first get someone passed out drunk, does that absolve my killing them because they don’t feel pain?

    There are a few pro-aborts out there who admit to the humanity of the unborn child, but then posit various arguments as to why that human life is not worthy of protection. While more intellectually honest, at least the obfuscators display a queasiness of sorts.

  3. Personhood on the other hand, is a philosophical/theological question, rather than scientific. However, it does have scientific factual underpinnings in that, a freshly conceived human (identified through scientific knowledge/investigation) raises different philosophical personhood questions than say, a recent combination of chemicals to create dish washing soap. The philosophical/theological question is are all human beings persons simply by virtue of being a human, or are there some categories/stages in which a human being is not a person?

    I only bring this up because you ask “can anyone name the scientist who discovered that an unborn human baby is actually a “non-person”?” That is an unfair (and dangerous) question. It is not the scientist’s place to determine personhood, because “personhood” is not a scientific question, nor should we want it to become one, any more than we would want the nuclear physicist to be the one to decide this country or that deserves to be nuked. Dropping the bomb is not a “scientific” question, although the decision does need to be based upon information derived by science (e.g., destructive potential, long term radiation effects, etc.). But the decision involves more than just scientific facts.

  4. C Matt,
    “Personhood is not a scientific question per se”, but people use it in a scientific way, and make life/death decisions based on the observation and location of a fetus. The main point is how should we judge if you are a person or not? Should it be based on an objective facts that are coherent or leave it to subjectivity. It’s also age discrimination. Because I was in the first stage of my life I had no right to be alive?…but that’s for another post.

  5. Rephrasing it something like this:
    “Personhood is not a scientific question. Science can tell is that the organism is alive, and what species it is. That organism is a human. That organism is alive. What living humans are you going to define as non-persons?”

  6. If they don’t get that one, point out that most of the war deaths for the US involved the question of if those humans, over there, were people or not.

  7. Well, and get prepared to be accused of comparing them to Hilter, because nobody wants to admit that what they’re doing is a variation on what the Nazis are famously wrong for.

  8. Sovereign personhood is endowed by “their Creator” at the procreation of the human being. The sovereignty and innocence, moral and legal is never more perfect than at conception. Human life is signified by the living human soul who has free will and wills to survive, intellect and sovereign personhood. Innocent sovereign personhood establishes the sovereign nation from the very first moment of existence, because it is. Without life there is no abortion. Life and TRUTH must be expunged to satisfy the bloodlust of the demons.
    The newest member of our constitutional Posterity develops his personality in his pursuit of Happiness, that is, pursuing the TRUTH to achieve his destiny
    Abortionists like to confuse sovereign personhood with personality. Because, as they say, the baby is not conscious of himself, so he is not human. How do they know?
    The newly begotten innocent person is the standard of Justice for the state, freely wills to survive and establishes the sovereign nation while creating a mother of a woman and a father of a man.
    The feminist movement emasculates men. The feminist movement hates man as the capitalist patriarchy. Did anyone mention the father in Roe. v. Wade? NO. In fact, a father did pursue his paternity in court and was denied his seed and his child.
    So, basically the feminist movement is a power struggle against femininity, a power struggle against everything natural and free. Abortion is a cudgel to beat men into submission by denying men’s sovereign personhood from the beginning of their existence.
    Abortion denies the sovereign personhood of the women who are aborted after conception. “A house divided against itself shall not stand.”
    It is important to remember that our Founding Principles, The
    Declaration of Independence acknowledges “their Creator”, and our Constitution acknowledges “We, the people” who are all ancestors, this generation and our constitutional Posterity, in The Preamble, all future generations who are “We, the people.”
    Science cannot be used to overturn our Founding Principles. Abortionists are FREE to leave or they are FREE to get three fourths of the states to ratify their pathetic misogynistic attitude toward all men of good will.

  9. Aborting an unborn child is a radically non-inclusive act. Abortion is the politics of the exclusion of the unborn from the life of the body politic.

  10. I get your point, and people do use personhood in a scientific way (based on location). People would be wrong. That is why it is vitally important to distinguish between those questions that are proper to science (is it alive, does it contain the human genome) vs. those questions science has no business answering. That is how you get the whole misguided “does it feel pain” debate. Whether or when an unborn human being feels pain (a scientific question) is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the unborn human being is a person. But by introducing “feels pain” as a criteria of whether or not this human being should be killed, you legitimize the killing of a human being “as long as it does not feel pain.”

  11. BEN:
    “Because I was in the first stage of my life I had no right to be alive?…but that’s for another post.?”
    Pursuit of Happiness is to return to our original innocence, that is procreation.

  12. C Matt,
    Your “drunk person” analogy is very appropriate as to why a pain threshold is an incoherent definition for a human person. But we can analyze conception as much we like; it’s a logical, objective and defensible beginning point.

  13. BEN: Enjoyed your comment. God said to Margaret: “Ask for anything.” Margaret said: “I want to win one million dollars in the lottery and live to one hundred years of age.” Margaret won the lottery, had her face lifted and was coming out of the beauty parlor when she was struck by lightning and fell dead. “God,” said Margaret, “I thought you promised that I could live to one hundred years of age.” God said: “Oh, is that you Margaret?”

  14. “2 of the 46 votes against were from Republicans”

    Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both feminists. They disgust me more than the Democrats. Why? Because I expect Democrats to be utterly evil, not them. But they are feminists. I rest my case.

  15. We need a few more Catholics in the Senate to pass that bill through. Oh!, I’m sorry. There were 14 Catholics who voted against it.

  16. The measure of compassion given to our brother will be equal to the compassion we receive when the Son of God, our brother, reviews our life.
    How, in the name of God, will anyone be able to fashion a defense in the name of abortion. It would be saying that God can not provide.
    No Faith. No Life. The faithless play God in a sense. They do it when they changed their sex, or use another in acts that are unnatural, and they certainly do it when they kill another. Science in this flimsy defense of abortion, is a cheap diversion for the faithless hordes that deny God and His law.
    Compassion, they might say, is killing unwanted babies.
    Good luck with that, those who support this genocidal practice. Good luck on the last day.

  17. The answer is sitting right there in our 14 Amendment. I’ quote the appropriate parts. “All persons born…in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,…, without due process; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Question: Does being born in the United States make one a “person?”

    Ans: No. Cows and horses are born in the United States, they not citizens. One must be a person, first, that when born in the United States they are instantly a citizen. AND AS A PERSON, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE WHICH THE STATE SHALL NOT DEPRIVE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTIONS THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

    If the 4 leftist on the Supreme Court and the 1 confused Catholic moderate can find a constitutional right of 2 males to “marry” each other, or 2 females to “marry” each other in the 14 Amendment, certainly they would join with the 4 conservatives and unanimously find that PERSONS unborn have the constitutional right to life, and no state shall deprive them of their right to life.

  18. The U.S. Bishops’ enacted the “Consistent Ethic of Life,” in 1983 to replace “Pro-life,” the word coined soon after Roe v. Wade to counter the pro-aborts calling themselves “Pro-choice.” Let’s see how well it’s doing within the Catholic electoral and their elected some 33 years later.

    I’ll use the House vote on “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act” because there are a lot more people elected to the House [430] than in the Senate[100]. The House bill number is 4712.

    There were 131 House Sponsors of that bill: 130 Republicans; 1 Democrat.
    It passed on 1/19/18: 241 to 183, with 6 not voting.
    Of the Ayes: 235 Republicans, 6 Democrats.
    Of the Nays: 183 Democrats.
    Of the not voting: 4 Democrats, 2 Republicans.
    What happen?! Cardinal Bernardin, the creator of the “Consistent Ethic of Life” sold his idea to the U.S Bishop conference, saying “A more cohesive and consistent position that recognized a spectrum of pro-life issues, ranging from peace through capital punishment, would energize the priests, clergy, and lay people in direct contact with the Catholic population in a positive way.” He said, “Not only would this move gain greater support from Catholics and others but it would keep the pro-life movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.” (“Cardinal Bernardin” a biography by Eugene Kennedy) Kennedy was a long time friend of Bernardin’s, over 30 years. Bernardin died in 1997, 8 years after the biography was published. He never refuted a word in it.

  19. Lets look at the Catholic vote for President last election. Catholics voted for Hillary Clinton 48% to Trump’s 45%.* That vote was broken down by “Race and Ethnicity.”
    “Non Hispanic white:” 37% Clinton; 56% Trump.
    “Hispanic or Latino” 74% Clinton; 19% Trump.
    “Other races/ethnidties 75% Clinton; 18% Trump.
    Something seriously wrong with Bernardin’s and Bishops’ “Consistent Ethic of Life” as far as it having a positive effect on electing prolife, i.e., anti-abortion candidates, especially in the Democrat Party..
    Looks like the “right wing conservatives” are running away with it. How could the Church have been sooooo wrong in this change in wording? (unless the real goal of expanding the definition of “pro-life” was not saving the unborn, but to give the sheep a way to save their self identity as Democrats, which makes them feel so good. “caring for the little guy” Catholics remain the largest single group in the pro-abortion Democrat Party. That makes me feel really bad because I thought they would all follow me out of the Democrat Party when I re-registered “Decline to State” in 1976 because my South Chicago Democrat Party was showing total support for abortion.
    * (“According to an analysis of American National Election Studies data by a political scientist at Georgetown University’w Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.”)

  20. There is a major reason that the “they feel pain” angle was used:
    it forced people to start considering the “fetal tissue” as a thing that might feel pain, which ran the risk of them having to face that the tissue is the body of a living human being.
    I don’t like it, either.

  21. I get the tactical angle of “feels pain.” But we do need to be careful about setting ourselves up for our tactics being used against us.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: