fbpx

uOttawa Students For Life: Personhood: Why All Human Beings Qualify

This post was written for uOttawa Students For Life by uOttawa Students For Life. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

by Marissa Poisson

 

From our neighbours to the south at Abort73:

There have been at least two other instances in American history in which specific groups of human beings were stripped of their rights of personhood as a means of justifying horrific mistreatment. African-Americans and Native-Americans both felt the brunt of a system which tried to create the artificial classification: human, non-person. This distinction wasn’t based on an honest evaluation of the evidence, but with an eye towards justifying a specific action. In the case of Native-Americans, they had land. In the case of African-Americans, they had labor. Classifying them as non-persons (even property) provided a moral framework for those in power to forcefully take what they wanted without compensation. Today, “unwanted,” unborn children don’t hold anything as tangible as land or labor, but their claims on those who would eliminate them are no less significant. They stand in the way of an unencumbered, more self-absorbed lifestyle. Once again, this notion that human beings can be classified as “non-persons” is not built on an objective assessment of the facts, but with an eye towards justifying abortion.

Check out the poster on the right about the denial of personhood.


Read the comments at the uOttawa Students For Life website.

uOttawa Students For Life: What’s the Difference?

This post was written for uOttawa Students For Life by uOttawa Students For Life. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

by Reita S.

We live in a mixed up world. We always have. There has always been evil in this world. There always will be. But it seems to me that a large part of this evil comes from losing track of the important things in this life.

When people begin to think that their own socio-economic betterment comes above justice for their fellows, then oppression follows. When people forget that religion is meant to bring a message of peace and love, they force it on others with threats and violence. When people forget they were not destined to be kings of all the rest of the earth, then colonialism and slavery result.

Today, we think we have learned those lessons. Today, we don’t believe that anymore. (Or so we tell ourselves.) In Utah, a man faces years in prison over the (accidental) death of a kitten. Animal activist leagues are pushing for a jail term. One activist said, “I think people tend to not think of them [cats] as beings that have a soul and a nervous system. They can still feel.”

So, tell me what kind of society we are that wants to send a man to jail for the accidental death of a cat, but will applaud at the ‘woman’s right to choose’? Don’t people realise that the woman has the right to choose whether or not to kill her child?

How is it that the demonstrated living nature, genetic uniqueness, and ability to feel pain of the unborn child is brushed aside, yet the cat’s ‘soul and nervous system’ should be a compelling argument?

I don’t know why there are thousands of children languishing in inadequate foster homes and orphanages, but people will leave billions of dollars to dog shelters.

I believe strongly in responsible pet ownership. I believe in caring for animals. But at the end of the day, why is it okay to kill a human child at any point of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, but a criminal act to harm a cat or dog? Why is the human child of such little significance? Can someone tell me the difference?


Read the comments at the uOttawa Students For Life website.