[1]McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)–“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck” was once accepted as a logical deduction. However, we are now told we must debate whether the mallard in question is a fowl or not. It might sound like web-footed feather-splitting to suggest such an argument, but it is precisely what those who support the legality of abortion now assert.
Abortion proponents have given up trying to advance their cause by arguing the unborn child is not a living creature. Medical evidence clearly indicates the fetus is a living being and not simply a blob of tissue. Those who want the termination of the unborn to remain legal in this country now argue that while the unborn baby might be alive, it cannot be considered a person.
Pro-abortion groups are clinging to the aforementioned argument as they seek to oppose legislation that would grant protected status to the pre-born. Under the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” (UVVA), criminals who commit an already defined federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman can be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim — the unborn child.
In seeking to derail the bill, which passed the U.S House of Representatives by a count of 252 to 172, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D.-Calif., argued, “… HR 503 [UVVA] flies in the face of Roe’s holding by affording ‘unborn victims’ the legal status of personhood.” Lofgren countered UVVA by introducing a bill that would have made pregnancy a specially protected class, making it a penalty-enhancing crime to commit a violent act against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy.
“The Motherhood Protection Act” sought to afford the “condition of pregnancy” a special legal status while trying to ignore any legal recognition of the fetus — which must be present in a woman’s body in order for pregnancy to occur. To a simple mind like mine, this sounds a bit confusing, much like arguing that while a mallard is a duck, it is not a fowl.
The pro-abortionists have never had any trouble throwing out the baby, but now they risk losing the bath water as well. They cannot afford to ignore violence against women which the UVVA addresses; however, they can ill afford to allow the fetus to gain the status of personhood, because in so doing, the cornerstone of their cause — the Roe vs. Wade decision — will become very vulnerable.
[2]Interestingly enough, the author of UVVA, Rep. Lindsey Graham, R. -S.C., seeks to distance his bill from the abortion debate. “This legislation does not affect Roe vs. Wade,” Graham said. “It is about violence against women and holding criminals accountable for their actions.”
Whether or not Graham’s bill will have an impact on Roe remains to be seen. It must navigate the Senate before it can land on the desk of President Bush and become law. However, it has exposed the warped logic of the pro-abortionist position.
Argue as one might, the unborn child is as much a person as a mallard is a fowl.
–30–
Boggs, whose column appears each Friday in Baptist Press, is pastor of Valley Baptist Church, McMinnville, Ore.