By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
The issue of abortion is at the very least highly contentious. Decades of heated arguments are not likely to end this discussion soon even in light of various statutory and common law mandates laying out a legal framework for which it is permitted or denied. The matter is a perennial source of political maneuvering, and litmus tests that can in some areas make or break the careers of politicians. This article will not discuss the ethical or legal aspects of abortion but rather the perspective and moral position of those who support pro-life, and why they cannot abandon their cause. It is an exercise in empathy that is applicable to other subjects in ethical studies.
A common tenet of the pro-life movement is that life begins at conception or at some embryonic or cellular evolvement during pregnancy. By extension, supporters consider this to be a person and that the destruction thereof is tantamount to killing in the same light as perhaps a pro-choice advocate would react to the infanticide of a newborn baby.
In somewhat of a contrast to this, the pro-choice movement generally assigns greater value to the freedom of the mother to choose her reproductive planning without interference from government or anti-abortion advocates. Certainly the Supreme Court declared that the government cannot establish a compelling state interest in a non-viable fetus. The pro-choice movement differs in that the early stage of fetal development, the life form is considered a “person”. As time draws closer to the point of birth this movement, and in many respects the courts, ascribe personhood to the fetus. As such the two sides do in-fact become better aligned in their respective beliefs.
As an aside, Pro-choice advocates do not generally consider conception to be the beginning of life, while most pro-life supporters do. Scientifically, or at least philosophically, neither are completely correct. In actuality life never ended and was therefore created. Prior to conception both sperm and egg are living as evidenced by motility and the ability to effect changes of events–as is the case with all forms of known life. They have cellular activity. The question can however be more correctly attributed as to when “human life” begins.
As stated previously, all reasonable persons, even if aligned in the abortion controversy, will agree that the killing of an infant is morally repugnant. But since Pro-Life supporters consider the unborn to be natural persons even at what others might consider just clusters of cells, without thought or attribution to persons, by their believes and values they cannot consent to the destruction of a fetus any more than a pro-life advocate can give deference to the killing of a child or baby.
It is for this reason that pro-life supporters cannot morally or ethically abandon their cause. Because in doing so they abandon striving for the protection of children or unborn persons. For unaligned, third parties, or even in some respects the pro-choice movement, each cannot ethically (or practically) expect the pro-lifers to suddenly switch to allowing the killing of those they consider to be humans/persons because it is asking another adult to accept murder.
It is for this basic tenet, that the pro-choice supporter then generates their higher level arguments to their cause, examples of such include: advocacy; protests; politics; organization; and religious morality; among others. This is of the same moral standard of supporting life and equality for the born, which should be a moral standard of all humanity.
There have been politicians who claim to be pro-life who make exceptions to a ban on abortions based upon the conditions of rape or incest. From the point of view of a fully invested pro-life advocate this is unethical and immoral. Why? In the pro-choice analogue it is akin to saying that babies born as the result of rape or incest are un-persons who might be legally subjected to life sanctions, namely death, due to their status of which they are blameless. The pro-life movement in the true sense considers life, as a whole, to be sacred regardless of class or any other type of label or disadvantage. That is a moral position for which they also cannot ethically abandon, again any more than a pro-life person would for the newborn.
There exists much fear and affront by advocates of pro-choice applicable to the pro-life movement. But for these individuals and those granting less importance to the matter it really becomes paramount to provide a level of empathy as to what the pro-life frame of mind believes and holds dear. It does not mean that pro-choice supporters must change their position, but it is unfair to label their opponents as immoral or threatening, for the pro-life position cannot abandon their cause ethically.
Because of pro-life’s position, they MUST continue their advocacy just as others MUST continue to advocate child welfare and life. If they begin deference or making conditions for supporting the personhood of the unborn, they are lowering the moral bar and creating a class of person who is not subject to protection. Those of us who support the notion of pro-choice have to recognize these moral convictions of pro-life supporters if we are to understand where they are coming from, and to be more successful in living with each other as rational and moral beings.
Like it or not, the pro-life movement has its moral and ethical mandate. It is also equally not ethical to demand they change their beliefs to comport to pro-choice’s either. This is something pro-life cannot do.
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Max
Find out which wars. WWII Japanese and German hospitals will make it a hell of a project.
Annie
Wait. What happens if she just ‘accidentally’ falls down the stairs? Can we Pro Deathers still for the death penalty?
Saaaay…..I wonder is stoning would be a good method of execution?
Whadayathink?
Mike, these people obviously haven’t throughly thought through their pro life stance to the reality of what it would entail to make abortion a crime.
Women who come into the ER miscarrying would be given a thorough investigation to make sure their miscarriage wasn’t artificially induced. Oh what glorious future to behold.
Annie
That’s no joke. Plenty of Jesus Hates Abortion nurses.
Tampons will be outlawed – they are just flushed away destroying all evidence.
We probably would see women dying at home because they would be fearful that the ER staff would have to report them to the abortion police.
Well you know me – I’m the Pro Deather.
Death to any woman who expels fetal tissue during menstruation! Now start collecting all those sanitary pads for inspection!
Do people truly want to go back to the days that poor women committed infanticide of their newborns, when women used coat hangers and back alley abortionists? Rich women will go overseas to have an abortion. We’ll be seeing cases of sepsis in the ER’s from botched abortions again, just like in the bad old days that authoritarians seem to long for.
Inga – we don’t have any back alley around here and the coat hangers all have plastic covers. Yours is an idle threat.
And Olly goes to the Dr. Carson School of the Holocaust!
Annie
It will be particularly interesting when they start jailing doctors and moms. I wonder if they will have brigades of inspectors who collect used sanitary pads for ‘evidence’ of abortions?
Gotten love those right wingers!
It’s called world history Mike. I realize studying it might be inconvenient to you but real governments have done the most horrible things to their own citizens; especially after they were disarmed. Of course all of that’s ancient history and no longer relevant in the 21st century. We’ve evolved don’t ya know?
The day government can dictate what a woman must do regarding her own body is the day we have become a fascist state. The small government types sure do seem eager to get government involved in a woman’s private choices. Seriously, the pro life crowd who are traditionally small government types, need to face the reality of just how much government enforcement it will take to keep women from having abortions. What shall we name the agency that will regulate American women’s reproductive issues? You have no idea what a nightmare it would be.
Anybody know what dystopian horror tale Olly might be reading that lets him create such fantasies?
We don’t need no history books. We’ve got Schulte and his Way-Back Machine to tell us exactly how it all came down!
And he can coin entirely new words that perfectly express a stranger’s political positions!
What an asset.
Mike – the nice thing about the English language is that new words are created and added to the language every year. So, if I make up a new word and you can figure out it’s meaning, we are on our way to getting it in to the Oxford English Dictionary.
ABORTION
Anti-Death Penalty
Global Warming
Anthropogenic Climate Change
“Fossil fuel” (actually abiotic)
Affirmative Action Matriculation
Affirmative Action Employment
Welfare
Social Services
Forced Busing.
Quotas
“Fair Housing”
“Civil Rights”/Vote Fraud
Homosexual Marriage
Rent Control
Pro-Striker/Union, Anti-Business, Anti-Taxpayer Laws
Medicare
Obamacare
WIC
HHS
HUD
Unemployment Extensions
Social Security
Greedy Striking Unions
Student Loans/Assistance
Dept. Education
Dept. Labor
NLRB
HAMP
HARP
Illegal Aliens/Vote Fraud
Anchor Babies/Vote Fraud
Amnesty
“Asylum”
“Anti-Discrimination”
“Hate Crime”
No Restricted-Vote Republic
Incoherent One Man, One Vote Democrazy
Unconstitutional Fed, Floated Currency
Corporate/Union Bailouts
“Stimulus”
ETC.
Yep. They’re all on the same list.
Whatever happened to that thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Golden Rule and Ten Commandments?
The Founders said it would take “good men” to perpetuate America.
Well, they gave it a good shot.
“The Founders said it would take “good men” to perpetuate America.”
You might want to add women’s “liberation” to your list. What a joke! Women are so liberated they can now CHOOSE slavery! They barely have a choice to stay home with their children. The kids are forced into daycare before either the child or the mother is ready. Women barely have time to form a rudimentary bond with their newborns. Given the “liberation” of women many probably feel abortion is the only way THEY will survive.
Now medical treatments are mandated by the state. Parents must comply with “accepted” medical treatments or watch out…CPS will force it on them. Individuals are being sacrificed on the alter of socialism; the new God. This is the ultimate nightmare of our founders.
And don’t expect “feminists” to defend feminine values. “Feminism” is really a misnomer. They really should be called “masculinists”. Every woman has a right to be masculine!! Feminists think they’re so tough and smart and they have simply been duped. We don’t need women’s rights at all we just need human rights. Anything else is just divisive bull crap.
“A woman’s reasons for abortion are private, and the procedure is legal.
Tough.”
And there you have the most honest response yet from the moral relativism crowd. The law made it legal to kill unborn children. Deal with it. And when the law decides your 3 year old is not self-aware and undeserving to continue living then you will not have a moral leg to stand on. When the law decides all unproductive citizens are a drain on society and undeserving to continue living then you’ll rue the day you gave that power to your government.
Mike I was just about to ask you if you knew what the heck Schulte is trying to say. I sure can’t make heads or tails out of it.
Pro death? Pro-deathers (is that the correct grammar, Schulte?) are like the anti-war movement and Vietnam?
Well sure. It’s completely logical that ‘pro-deathers’ like me would be part of the anti-war movement and Vietnam. Of course. All those anti Vietnam War people were all pro-death.
Makes perfect sense. I don’t know why I didn’t understand Schulte’s comment.
All this blog needs is a Yassarian to pull the insanity all together.
‘Mike – the pro-lifers are no worse than the anti-war movement and Vietnam’
Anybody have a guess as to what Schulte means by that comment?.