75-07-B3
- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1975
| << Previous Broadcast | Next Broadcast >> |
Abortion Laws[edit]
Transcript[edit]An unborn child's property rights are protected by law-it's right to life is not. I'll be right back. A little over eight years ago when I became governor of California I found myself involved almost at once in a controversy over abortion. It was a subject which I hadn't given much thought before and one upon which I didn't really have an opinion. But as governor I had to face the issue a bill had been introduced in the California legislature to make abortions available on demand. The forces for and against it were marshaling their troops and emotions were running pretty high. Then the author of the bill sent word to me that he'd amend it any way I felt necessary in order to get me to sign it. Well as they say the ball was in my court. I did more studying and soul searching on that subject than on any other in my years as governor. I learned that neither the medical professional, law or theology had ever really found a common ground on the subject. Some believe that an unborn child was no more than a growth in the female body and that she should be able to remove it as she would her appendix. Others felt that human life existed from the moment the fertilized egg was implanted in the womb. Ironically the same legislature that couldn't agree on abortion had unanimously passed a law making it murder to abuse a pregnant woman so as to cause the "death of her unborn child." Another inconsistency-unborn children also have property rights protected by law. A man can will his estate to his wife and children and any children yet to be born of his marriage. Yet the proposed abortion law in California would have denied the unborn the right to life itself. I went to the lawyers on my staff and posed a hypothetical question. What if a pregnant woman became a widow during her pregnancy and found that her husband had left his fortune to her and the unborn child. Under the proposed abortion-on-demand law she could take the life of her child and inherit not half but all of her husband's estate. Now wouldn't that be murder for financial gain? Well they said they were glad I wasn't asking the questions on the bar exam. There's a common acceptance in medical circles that the cell-let's call it the egg-once it has been fertilized is on its way as a human being with individual physical even personality characteristics already determined. My answer as to what kind of abortion bill I could sign was one that recognized that an abortion is the taking of a human life. I concluded that there were two instances in which it was justified. The Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the right to take a life in defense of our own. Therefore an abortion is justified when done in self-defense. A woman has the right, I believe, to protect her own life if it is endangered, even against her unborn child. I believe also that just as she has the right to defend herself against rape, she should not be made to bear a child resulting from that violation of her person. In such cases abortion is again an act of self-defense not everyone agrees with this view but I can find no evidence whatever that a fetus is not a living human being with human rights. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
Details[edit]
| |||||||||||
Added Notes[edit] |
