SAFE, LEGAL, AND RARE IS MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE

By Dr. Andrew Corbett, September 7th 2013 It's reported that President Bill Clinton was the first to coin the phrase, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare." This clever sounding phrase was designed to be a politically safe appeasement for both the 'Pro-Life' and the 'Pro-Choice' camps. Due to the political success of this phrase it has been picked up by other politicians around the world who are also seeking to avoid polarising their electorate. But I consider this phrase absolutely non-sensical and utterly morally indefensible. Here's why. WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT And during Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential race, he reiterated President Bill Clinton's rhetorical quip about safe, legal, and rarebut added the very amusing preface- "That question is above my pay-grade!" This week I was privileged to moderate a public political forum in Launceston, Tasmania, where both major party candidates repeated the mantra about Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. It was neither appropriate nor allowable for me to interrogate the candidates on their glib answer about abortion. But I did wonder how many people in the audience thought, as they thought when Bill Clinton said it and then Barack Obama reiterated it, whether this answer was as equally coherent as it was applaudable? Here's what we're talking about. I have a conviction that- The unjust taking of an innocent human life is wrong. Therefore, the random assassination of a person is morally wrong. And the killing of an unborn child is wrong for exactly the same reason. Because the two forms of killing are morally equal (that is, they are both immoral), should the mantra- Random assassinations of people should be safe, legal and rare similarly apply? When we discuss abortion, we are necessarily talking about the unjust taking of an innocent person's life. Das Recht auf Leben ist die einfachste und grundlegende universelles Menschenrecht - The right to live is the most basic and fundamental universal human right. It is utterly false, incoherent, delusional, and deceptive to claim that an unborn baby is not a human being deserving of this most basic Menschenrecht - human right! Abortion is most commonly initially justified by asserting that it is "an embryo". Here is a picture of embryo, with some accompanying details- A human embryo at 50 days. It is between 13 - 18 millimeters long. The flexure of the head is gradually reduced and the neck is somewhat lengthened. The upper lip is completed and the nose is more prominent. The nostrils are directed forward and the palate is not completely developed. The eyelids are present in the shape of folds above and below the eye, and the different parts of the auricula are distinguishable. It is then justified as morally defensible because it is not a human being yet. In this instance it is most commonly described as a foetus. Here is a picture of a foetus with accompanying details- The body is covered by fine hairs (lanugo) and the deposit of vernix caseosa is considerable. The papillæ of the skin are developed and the free border of the nail projects from the corium of the dermis. Measured from vertex to heels, the total length of the fetus at the end of this month is from 30 to 32 cm. WHAT DETERMINES SOMEONE'S HUMANITY For the sake of all those on lower "pay-grades", here is what the rest of us can tell you about what constitutes a human being. This won't take long. I say this because often politicians wave their hands at the question and laugh it off with a, "Boy! How much time have we got??!" This doesn't require the making of convoluted or technical arguments. A human being is biologically the offspring of a man and a woman which necessarily means they have (human) DNA (unique to them) which is traceable to their parents. This definition is not subject to a person's: [Read Full Article]