Ah, the sanctity of life. A fetus come to term, having survived nine months inside another person, is ready to become its own person, no longer living inside another body that may or may not have been such a great host. Either way, that fetus is now somebody … who had absolutely no say in where or why they were born, and definitely no say in the highly volatile immigration debate.
Somebody who’s eager to cry, sleep, laugh, crawl, walk, talk, become a child, play like a child, dream like a child, grow up like a child, become an adult, like all children.
Somebody who — after making it past the harrowing journey through an Indiana-Jones-like birth canal — must be, all at once, somebody who’s able to breathe, keep breathing and survive in a suddenly non-sterile world.
Just like that, that somebody is now a baby, completely dependent on the world for survival for some years to come.
If that baby is born in the United States of America, should that baby be afforded the rights afforded to all babies born in United States of America, as determined by the laws of United States of America?
Or should that baby be turned away, rejected, mandated to go elsewhere because of the actions of the vessel that gave birth to the baby?
Ah, the sanctity of life. As long as the life-giver is a United States citizen?
Does that mean it’s OK for illegal immigrants to have abortions?
Which is the better alternative: allowing illegal immigrants to have abortions, or letting those fetuses to come to term, then getting rid of them?
To paraphrase disgruntled teenagers arguing with their disgruntled parents, “They didn’t ask to be born (in this country).”
When it comes to immigration, can you have it both ways? Can you be pro-life and anti-birthright citizenship?
Ah, the sanctity of life.
Randy Boyd author 