I’ll respond to the following three excerpts from a concerned citizen about HB302, a bill calling for an amendment to the Montana Constitution declaring personhood beginning at conception:
“In the case of unwanted pregnancies, would you be as passionate in advocating support for these children in our burdened not exactly ideally functioning foster care system? Would you advocate funding for healthcare of the mother and child during the pregnancy? Would you also legislate in fully funding adoption services? Of those that end up being parent(s) will you ensure laws that support their education, enough to join the workforce at a living wage jobs (15 years ago, $16 per hour was considered). What legislation do you support that creates this kind of job availability? How about Expanded Medicaid?”
“I deeply believe it is all well and good to be passionate about life … yet … The nature of this amendment eliminates personal choice for women, even in the event of rape and incest. I personally know of a few situations of rape and incest and the nature of family life for these persons and their offspring. There is much dysfunction, emotional confusion, anger and resentment. Schools especially often bear the burden for mental health.”
“This is borders on legislating religious belief, which is unconstitutional.”
Let me deal with the “unconstitutional” claim first, because it’s the ripest, lowest hanging plum. All legislation reflects a religious belief. All legislation says one thing is morally right, and the opposite, morally wrong. Even your desire that there be no religion in legislation is a dogma of your religion. To this, I could say, “Keep your religion out of legislation.”
The abortion debate has three options: We do not know when a fetus is a person; The fetus is not a person; The baby is a person.
If we don’t know when it’s a person, why in the world would we dispose of it? Why would we dare risk the death of a child if we cannot be sure of its personhood? If you were carrying a trash bag to the curb and someone shouted to stop because there was a child inside, would you toss it in the dumpster? After all, it doesn’t look like a baby; My bag, my choice! Dare we be lackadaisical in judgment when a human life is at stake? We’re certainly stalwarts for life if the child is crossing the border, just not when they’re crossing the birth canal.
In your arguments about the burden on society, you cede the field to personhood. You’ve fashioned the rope into a noose around the neck of your premise and handed me the other end. None of your arguments apply if it is not a person. Non-persons do not become a burden on the foster care system or require healthcare. Non-persons are not educated nor do they demand a wage or require Medicaid. Non-persons aren’t adopted, unless you’re an animal or highway. I suppose if it could be proven an unborn child were a dog or stretch of road, they would be protected; that is how wicked we’ve become. Your complaints only make sense if you agree to personhood. Let alone, none of these areas are the government’s concern to finance: Adoption and foster care were run by churches in the past, and healthcare and education were privately funded. That government has become so heavily involved in these areas does not mean it should be.
Removal of a clump of cells, a tumor or a parasite is covered by health plans and would certainly not require a special act of the U.S. Supreme Court. Nor would it seem necessary to hold marches and “shout your abortion.” If it’s merely a clump of cells, settle down. Clap, clap. Join the folks who’ve had appendectomies and tonsillectomies. Abortion by definition is the cessation of a progressive development of something, not the removal of a tumor. You don’t abort a parasitic growth. We don’t speak of aborting a cancer mass or an abscessed tooth. Abortion is a premature end to a positive progression. That’s why the word is used in reference to killing babies in the womb. It fits, keep shouting it.
It is a person, hence the Supreme Court brouhaha. Why would we need divine legal permission to cut out a polyp? Again, if it’s just a tumor, cut it out like we’ve done for ages. Shout your wart removal.
Since it is a person, you are advocating murder for convenience sake or society’s financial sake. This is where the abortion debate resides today, because science matters. This also aligns well with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and their ilk, if that’s what you’re shooting for (no pun intended). It is no coincidence the Left is chasing fascism and socialist ways while also chasing abortion up until the first breath or beyond. Death is a tool engineers use to shape a socialist dystopia to winnow out undesirables and outcasts. These folks would suggest the child being the result of rape or incest should be disposed of. If personhood does not start at conception, who draws the line? Say the child is five, yet was the result of rape. Is he open to the death penalty once his mother or father no longer want him? If he’s become a burden to the school and society, and his father is also his grandfather, does the Supreme Court grant the mother or the school the right to put him to death? Doesn’t an age limit still rob a woman of the right to choose?
We know babies are persons from conception. That is why we congratulate mothers “with child.” Expectant mothers are referred to as both “expecting” a child and as a mother. They visit baby doctors during pregnancy and listen for the heartbeat, anxiously watch for signs of growth and good health, and take precautions to keep baby safe and healthy. If a pregnant mother is killed, the killer can be charged with double homicide.
We know the truth, but when confronted with life’s difficulties we want someone else to sacrifice for us. Someone has sacrificed Himself for us. Look to Christ, not the death of a child.
There is no logical, moral reason to kill a child in the womb, and we all need to repent from the wickedness of the slaughter of over sixty million innocent children.
Rep. Greg DeVries (R-Jefferson City) represents House District 75. He can be reached at greg.devries@mtleg.gov and via his Facebook page “Greg DeVries for Montana House District 75.”
