A Question For Debbie Wasserman Shultz: When Does Life Begin? (Video)

  • Since Debbie Wasserman Schultz thinks it is extreme and radical to think that life begins at conception, we need to know something from the Chair of the Democratic National Committee. When exactly does life begin?

    Before getting into the question about when life begins or has value via personhood, a glaring hypocrisy must be noted when it comes to the science part of this issue. The science is clearly settled as to when life begins so it is the pro-abortion absolutist crowd that are prenatal science deniers even though they like to attack us as being man made global warming deniers. Shultz and others are basing their abortion views on the Dark Ages of prenatal medicine. What is prenatal surgery on exactly? A tumorous mass growing in the mother’s uterus or a human life? Visually speaking, if it looks like a human, should we not be cautious, err on the side of protecting that which looks like us, and not justify it’s murder because of a temporary location? If your husband, wife, child or coworker asked you if it could be killed, would you not want to know what “it” is first?

    Now getting on to the claim that arguing that the pro-life view that life begins at conception is extreme to someone who belongs to a political Party that is willing to tolerate infanticide. This debate is not really about when life begins, as the science is settled, unless Shultz and others want to maintain the absurd idea that nothing really happens at conception.

    So I ask Ms. Shultz, when exactly does life begin then? What arbitrary point have you deemed that our human body has value? You seem to want it after birth but given the arguments in favor of abortion many of those arguments carry over and justify infanticide. Just because the location of the baby has changed does not mean anything substantive has for the baby.

    Is personhood a degreed or non-degreed property? Can one be more or less a person? Nothing new genetically is added to the newly conceived person in the womb, so the unborn should be considered to have full personhood at conception. If it is degreed as you must think it is, then what conditions must be continually met to keep such personhood? The location of a person should not matter to one’s identity as a person. A newborn baby is just as dependent on the mother as the unborn baby. A welfare recipient is dependent on the State or other people for his or her well being but that does not mean they lack personhood. A child cannot take care of himself for many years but that does not mean the killing of toddlers should be legal.

    What about an adult’s personhood? Is consciousness your criteria? One can have more or less degrees of conciousness. Does that mean we could justifiably kill someone in altered state of consciousness? Someone in their sleep, on hallucination drugs, or who is drunk? Under any view that does not ground personhood at conception then any of these options are available. Even a noted ethicist, Peter Singer, thinks infanticide is justifiable. These are just a few of the questions Shultz needs to answer. If she did I think we would realize that it is her view, and others who share it, that is extreme.

    Related posts:


    November 4th, 2011 | bluecollartodd | No Comments | Tags: ,

About The Author

Leave a Reply

* Name, Email, and Comment are Required