During a debate on abortion, Florida Congressman Brian Mast placed a $20 bill on the desk and announced that “Any one of you or your colleagues wants to speak up and tell us when life begins, it’s sitting here for you.”
Mast knew his money was safe because in the 50 years that abortion has been a major controversial issue in America – since the Roe v. Wade decision – no advocate for terminating the life of an evolving human being has been willing or able to answer that question definitively – scientifically.
I know that from my research and from my own similar inquiry to abortion advocates. The essential question underlying the entire abortion is when is that magical moment when a developing human being transforms from a disposable piece of flesh to a person with all the inalienable constitutional rights of a human being? It is the difference between elective surgery and murder – potentially genocide.
The assumption of the pro-abortion community is that the life in the womb is valueless. It is not a human being. “It has no rights to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” They will tell you that they do not see it as a human being. Well duh! If they did, they would be condoning murder. Personally, I do not believe those having abortions – or performing abortions – are guilty of murder in a civic and legal sense only because they have been led to believe the fetus is not a person.
BUT … to preserve their belief they must avoid, at all costs, any discussion or consideration that the unborn IS human and IS entitled to life as a basic right. They do not engage in that debate because they know that they cannot address the issue of when a developing human is imbued with the rights of personhood. They cannot win that argument. They cannot maintain their belief if forced to address the biological facts. They must remain in the vagueness of their delusion to maintain their belief … their decency … their proclaimed moral ground.
Like Mast, I have frequently challenged pro-abortion folks with that question – although not with a $20 bill. In friendly dialogue, they simply retreat to their belief and refrain from further discussion. In less friendly discussions, they blow up … distract … attack … and get out of the debate. In either case, it is the same result. Not only the avoidance of an answer but a personal fear of even considering the answer…
When does a developing human in the womb become a citizen with rights and protections is the singularly most critical question. Once that fetus in the womb obtains personhood, the entire justification for abortion-on-demand collapses. The economic situation of the mother or any inconvenience caused by the birthing process are no longer justifications for terminating the life of that individual – that person. The unborn child I suddenly imbued with all the rights and legal protections of the recently born child.
Our society terminates the life of evolving humans without any sound scientific specificity as to when that change takes place. In fact, the transformation point jumps around according to the arbitrary political and social zeitgeist of the day. What was once considered a legal abortion is later deemed to be murder. And you can see those willy-nilly determinations in court records.
Mast made an important point in again drawing attention to the pro-abortion lobby’s inability to fix a time in gestation when that thing in the womb becomes a person. As usual, none of his Democrat colleagues claimed the prize. As usual, they went on the attack.
It was reported that Mast’s challenge left Democrat Congresswoman Jackie Speier of California (of course) nearly speechless. Despite her self-proclaimed inability to speak, Speier had a lot to say.
“Uh… it gets more painful every single day. When you think about it, you’ve got an attorney general (Todd Rokita) in Indiana who has smeared a healthcare professional in that state who did exactly what she was supposed to do in providing an abortion to a ten-year-old. But he was gonna bring charges against her. We have a colleague on the other side of the aisle who is now putting down $20 bills as if we’re gonna race over there to get that $20 bill to answer his question. I mean, what are we doing here?! Have we lost it? This bill simply codifies what is interpreted in the Constitution in the 5th Amendment. Now, we have Justice Kavanaugh, who said, was asked the question, ‘may a state bar a resident of the state from traveling to another state? The answer is no.’ But interestingly enough, the right to travel – those words – are not in the 5th Amendment. So, if we have an originalist Court, we do have to pass this bill.”
That from a nearly speechless woman. It appears Speier has been taking word-salad lessons from Vice President Harris. But I digress.
Speier did not like Mast’s “theatrics.” Theatrics on the floor of the House? Heaven forbid!! Ah … wait. Was Speier part of a Democratic Party that interrupted the work of the House with a sit-in? If that was not “theatrics” it must have been an insurrection by today’s definition. Ooops! Again, I digress.
There are two problems with politically selecting an arbitrary day for the transition to personhood. The first is that it is arbitrary and subject to change. We once believed life began at birth. Medicine and technology now suggest personhood occurs when the fetus can survive outside the womb with general care. There are theories of brainwave activity, fetal heartbeat, and the presence of pain. None of these provide a definitive answer. And yet, there are those on the extreme edge of abortion advocacy who would rip apart a fully formed baby that is at full term.
The second problem is what I call the “previous day” issue. If you select any day in the gestation period, the fetus is essentially unchanged from the previous day. There is no distinction upon which to make a rational or scientific determination. The only truly exceptional moment I … conception. That I hen the male and female DNA and all … that I all … the trait of a human being are in place. There can be rational and moral arguments for allowing abortion where the mother’s life I at risk … in cases of rape and incest.
Mast struck at the heart of the issue. When does the evolving human in the womb attain the status of personhood – with all the rights and protections? Until that can be resolved in a scientific or rational manner, Speier’s indignant response to Mast’s question is irrelevant.
So, there ‘tis.
‘Have we lost it?’: Jackie Speier rips House Republican for flashing cash during abortion rights bill debate
© AlterNet’Have we lost it?’: Jackie Speier rips House Republican for flashing cash during abortion rights bill debate
United States Congressman Brian Mast (R-Florida) on Friday attempted to coerce Democrats in the House of Representatives into validating right-wing talking points about abortion by flashing cold, hard cash.
Mast performed his stunt during a floor debate over House Resolution 8297, which if it passes would protect the right to interstate travel to get an abortion.
“I got a $20 bill here. It’s not worth as much as it used to be worth. I’ll put it down here on the table. Any one of you or your colleagues wants to speak up and tell us when life begins, it’s sitting here for you,” Mast boasted.
Mast’s theatrics left Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-California) nearly speechless.
“Uh… it gets more painful every single day. When you think about, you’ve got an [attorney general] in Indiana who has smeared a healthcare professional in that state who did exactly what she was supposed to do in providing an abortion to a ten-year-old. But he [Todd Rokita] was gonna bring charges against her. We have a colleague on the other side of the aisle who is now putting down $20 bills as if we’re gonna race over there to get that $20 bill to answer his question,” Speier said in response.
“I mean, what are we doing here?! Have we lost it?” she exclaimed. “This bill simply codifies what is interpreted in the Constitution in the 5th Amendment. Now, we have a [Supreme Court] Justice, [Brett] Kavanaugh, who said, was asked the question, ‘may a state bar a resident of the state from traveling to another state? The answer is no.’ But interestingly enough, the right to travel – those words – are not in the 5th Amendment. So if we have an originalist Court, we do have to pass this bill.”
Watch below or at this link.