When I have an opportunity I enjoy watching John Stossel’s Show on FOX (weekly) or FOX Business (daily). John Stossel is a Libertarian and although I disagree with him on many things I find his style engaging, his questions well thought out and sometimes provocative. In a show this past weekend, that I believe was a rerun, he was interviewing various experts on questions like, should the government be involved in marriage? Should drugs be legalized? Should individuals be allowed to sell their organs for a profit? Along the way surrogate pregnancy was mentioned and David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the CATO Institute (a public policy think tank) pointed out that although the surrogate mother’s expenses were reimbursed, they weren’t really allowed to make money on their services. The discussion went further into adoption and the question was raised as to whether parents should be allowed to sell their children. David Boaz responded with the claim that one could not sell their children because a child isn’t property and a parent can’t own them. We might call this the myth of human rights.
The myth of human rights is perpetuated by publicly claiming that humans are not property and therefore one human cannot own another human. According to this myth, humans have rights solely on the basis of being human. In reality, only those humans the ruling elite deem worthy of rights, in this case the geographically advantaged humans are accorded human rights in any measure. Those humans that do not fit their arbitrary criteria, the geographically disadvantaged, are legally regarded as property and as such are owned. Their owners have absolute decision making power on whether they live or die and if the owner decides they do not want their human property they can even choose how to have them killed.
I am sure there are some, or perhaps many who are reading this who are wondering if I have lost my mind. “No honest, right thinking American could suggest such a thing!” they might be saying. Well, I try to be honest and I believe I am right thinking. However, I not only suggest that there is an entire industry, a very profitable one I might add, right here in the good ole U.S. of A that thrives on killing and disposing of human property that is owned by other humans. The human property that is owned is obviously human. It isn’t a fish, reptile, bird or some other critter. In fact, if it was any of those it would be protected from the kind of wanton carnage that is carried out every day solely because it is someone’s property to do with as they will. It is property exclusively because of where it lives geographically. The human that lives inside the womb is property owned by its mother.
Once it makes a few centimeter transition from inside the womb to outside the womb, viola, it now geographically advantaged and is protected with human rights. In the womb the owner can have this small human dismembered, removed and summarily discarded. The owner could have it chemically burned to death and removed for disposal.
This is not a judgment on the many women who have ended their pregnancies through this means. Most often they have been deceived into thinking that the child is something other than human. It is a “fetus”, a sort of non-descript “potential” life. This word is used as a euphemism in order to not alert women in distress that this is a human child in their womb. Women making this decision are in distress for any number of reasons but the popular media and liberal politicos work hard at down playing what is in the womb.
It is a human being, distinct and separate from the mother although living inside them temporarily. The child has its own DNA, is the opposite sex about half the time and has a different blood type. We can even see the various stage of development which unquestioningly demonstrates its humanness. Deception runs deep and seems to grant permission to do what would be unthinkable in any other circumstance. If the child was geographically advantaged (outside the womb) and sitting on the exam table in the doctors office when the doctor offered to dismember and dispose of the infant, the mother would be horrified and the police would be called in to arrest the physician in question.
In Isaiah 1:21-23 God addresses His people Israel who saw themselves as righteous and caring with some rather harsh words:
How the faithful city has become a harlot, She who was full of justice! Righteousness once lodged in her, but now murderers. Your silver has become dross, Your drink diluted with water. Your rulers are rebels and companions of thieves; everyone loves a bribe and chases after rewards. They do not defend the orphan, Nor does the widow’s plea come before them.
“Now murderers.” Their leaders were “rebels and companions of thieves.” Money and power was their primary focus. That pretty well describes the situation in our nation today. Allowing one human to own another human in the name of political expediency and power is a travesty. David Boaz is interested in and a defender of individual rights. Should he have as much interest in the rights of all humans, geographically disadvantaged as well as geographically advantaged or is he more in concerned with the rights of the property owners in this case? I am hoping he is simply deceived or hasn’t thought this through.