Credit: Matt Walsh’s insightful presentation at Baylor University
The Continuing Evangelical Episcopal Communion is decidedly and determinately PRO-LIFE.
Concerning Sanctity of Life, our Canons state, “God, and not man, is the creator of human life. The unjustified taking of life is sinful. Therefore, all members and Clergy are called to promote and respect the sanctity of every human life from conception to natural death.”
We believe that, regardless of age or stage of development, It is always wrong to directly and intentionally kill innocent, defenseless human beings.
The reason that HOPE LIVES is that Jesus lives, and He lives to always make intercession for us. The truth of the Gospel is that JESUS FORGIVES SIN. Every sin, no matter how heinous.
If your life has been impacted by abortion and you want to speak and pray with someone who will lovingly and gently listen, we are ready to offer hope.
Click the CONTACT US link and we’ll reach out to you privately and directly. HOPE LIVES.
The claim is made that the unborn child is not a human person and thus does not have the same moral standing and cannot make the same moral claims for itself and so why not kill it.
Let’s examine this assertion.
It’s simply a scientific fact that the being in the womb
- Is indeed a being – it exists – it’s something
- It’s a member of the human species
All living things must be a member of some sort of species.
If it is not it is not of the human species, then what species is it?
Fetus is not a species, it’s a stage of development within a species.
We know that it’s of the human species because- it’s got human D.N.A.
- it’s created by 2 people and 2 human beings could never ever create anything other than another human being.
- Is living
- Only 3 states of being that a thing can be – Living, Dead, Inanimate
Some will say that it’s not a person because
- it’s still developing
- it’s dependent upon its mother for survival
This view that personhood is acquired by degree and that it can be forfeit if you are entirely dependent on another person for survival clearly implicates more than just the unborn.
The sick, the infirm, the disabled, the elderly would all be caught in this net.
- Elderly are often in nursing homes, dependent on others for survival
- Disabled are not only dependent on others for survival, but sometimes they are disabled because they have not fully physically developed.
So, by this line of reasoning, all of these people at a minimum would be not quite as “person-y” as the next person.
If personhood is on a spectrum, if it is contingent on other things, then that must have implications beyond the womb that’s just basic logic.
Saying the unborn child is not a person is a statement about personhood itself, how it works and how it functions; you’re saying it’s on a spectrum and it’s contingent.
ONLY TWO OPTIONS EXIST HERE:
- Personhood is attained by degree, contingent upon other factors like self-sufficiency
- Personhood and it’s attending moral rights and dignities is inherent to all living human beings.
INHERENT means existing in something as a permanent, essential and characteristic attribute of itself.
If something is inherent that means it belongs to the essential nature of the thing. So, for example, liquid water is inherently WET.
The idea that our that our human dignity our personhood belongs to our essential nature and cannot be lost or diminished is an idea that lies very much at the foundation of our country in the United States. Any notion of human rights hinges on this idea that we have inherent dignity.
If an unborn baby does not have inherent value, then human value is not permanent or essential. And thus if the unborn does not have inherent value then neither do any of you.
YOU CAN’T GAIN INHERENT VALUE, you either have it or you don’t. That’s why it’s inherent.
There is an unbroken chain of evidence connecting the you of today to the you that was in the womb. If you did not have value then, you don’t have value now. Either you had inherent value all the while, or you do not have it now.
That’s why the unborn child is a human person, and that’s why killing this human person who is innocent and defenseless is, by definition, murder.
Have you noticed something throughout history there have always been groups of people trying to claim that other groups of people aren’t people?
Throughout history there have always been people making that claim and
- they have always ended up on the wrong side of history
- we always look back at them with scorn and hatred and contempt whether we’re talking about slave holders or Nazis.
If you find yourself on the same side as all of the worst people in history that should tell you something
The argument for abortion is actually even worse than you think. The pro-abortion person with this argument is really making 2 assertions:
- An unborn baby is not a person
- Therefore we can kill it
How do you get to TWO from ONE? Assertion two doesn’t follow logically from assertion one. Just because something isn’t a person doesn’t necessarily mean that we can kill it.
That’s a whole separate case you need to make.
If I conceded the point that the unborn child isn’t a person but merely a potential person you still have another even bigger leap to make; you if you have all your work still in front of you. Even if it is just a potential person, why would we not treat this potential person like it is one of the most valuable and precious things in existence? It’s a potential PERSON.
Imagine you have a lottery ticket. You just won $50,000,000 in the lottery. You’re running down the street and I steal it from you, and burn it right in front of you. You’d say “You just stole $50,000,000 from me.” I cannot say “It’s just a piece of paper, it’s only a potential of $50,000,000.” In that moment you would draw no distinction whatsoever between just a piece of paper and $50,000,000; even though it’s not exactly the same it’s basically the same. So if you would draw that distinction with a lottery ticket, why would we NOT draw it with this being who will “one day” be a human person?
The second argument that is often made is that of BODILY AUTONOMY.
The bodily autonomy argument states that women have the right to control their own bodies, regardless of the moral status of the creature inside their womb. They’ll say ‘It relies on my body and so I can do what I want with it.”
We have a clear and simple answer to that issue as well.
If you wish to hear it, select the “CONTACT US” link and simply put BODILY AUTONOMY in the message.