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.
Will the pro life commenters on the blog please chime in and tell us whether you are now, or have you ever been, a Catholic?
Negative on the Catholic question, but neither am I radical pro-life. I’ve never been committed to a single traditional organized religion.
Olly, The comment @ 1:03am shows just how right you are. There is no need to twist the fetal homicide laws to very infrequent circumstances. There are MANY homicides where the pregnant mom and unborn child are killed, and the murderer is charged w/ TWO[2] counts of homicide, one of the mother, the other of the unborn child. This is far and away the scenario that invokes these laws. This is an honest, straightforward, question that has been evaded and twisted. Again, I can only surmise the reason.
Olly, I would make one change when you said, “The other end of the spectrum says you can kill a baby all the way up to the point it’s out of the womb.” Fetal homicide laws in 38 states, many very liberal states, refute that. They consider it homicide if you kill a baby in the womb unless you are the mother. I am honestly looking for any semblance of logic in that. No one has given anything even resembling a thoughtful response to this. I can only surmise why.
All this blathering about moral high ground is merely an effort to deflect attention away from your own squishy, relative view on morality. Can a person believe all life is sacred and serve in the military? Of course and if you cannot reason your way through that simple question without assistance then you are truly in over your head. The problem for the relativists here is their logic is absolutely flawed. They toss around “moral high ground” as if that absolves them of not making a logical argument for their own beliefs. By trying to tear down someone elses moral choices they hope no one has noticed they can’t defend their own. Using your logic, if someone has taken the moral low road one time, then they are never allowed to seek the better path ever again. They lost the high ground and have no legitimate reason to get it back. A woman who had an abortion one time could never be among the pro-life crowd because what, she lost the moral high ground?
The object of the moral question is not the choices we make but what the choices are. Is it immoral to kill an unborn child at any stage of development? A pro-lifer would say yes. The other end of the abortion spectrum says you can kill a baby all the way up to the point it’s out of the womb and dissected for parts. Moral high ground for many is somewhere along that spectrum. Instead of attacking and questioning others “moral high ground”, where do you stand along that spectrum. By the way, don’t let others get you side-tracked into war, Sandy Hook, Hiroshima, capital punishment, bombing of hospitals or any other logical fallacies they consider. None of those have anything to do with this choice about this specific issue. If you are unable to detach yourself from those other issues then you are a moral relativist and base your moral decisions on the moment and not the issue.
“Logic can only see the reflected glory of existence; it cannot see existence itself because existence is far deeper than logical formulations.” – Osho
“God has not to be approached through logic but through love. To approach him through logic is to miss him. The sure way to miss God is logic. It prohibits, it hinders; God cannot be caught in a logical net. The logical net is too crude – and God is so subtle. He is not like a fish, he is more like water. You can catch the fish in the net but not the water, the water will escape.” Osho
I would like for some of you to chime in on where you stand and why you stand there. Some argue that the pro life crowd is standing in a mud puddle. If you are pro life are you Catholic or were you Catholic at some point?
If you are Catholic then answer this question for me. Why do Catholics oppose birth control? Not oppose abortions. Why oppose rubbers and pills and devices to prevent conception?
If you are Catholic do you wish to see Catholics out populate other religions?
Several of us did a study of why Ferguson went down hill over the years. We attribute this to the influx of Catholics in the 1950s and 1960s. They were certainly pro life and demonstrated it by the number of families which had more than five kids. Those Catholics came out to Ferguson to get their first family home. Their parents lived in rentals in the City of St. Louis. Ferguson had some new subdivisions of small shingle homes which were affordable. Those homes did not hold up well and are not now desireable due to the shanty construction and shingle siding– and small lots. The very next generation did not want them. They are now mostly rentals. Property values went way down but also nearby they went down. It was not “white flight” which resulted in minorities moving in to the old Catholic subdivisions. Ferguson is in great shape. There is nothing wrong with the minorities who live in Ferguson. The looters and fleeing felons like Michael Brown come from outside Ferguson. Blame the looting on Al Sharpton. The defamation of Ferguson is due to the lame media. There are no “housing projects” in Ferguson. It is not a “Ghetto” like the media says. One of the editorial writers for the Post Dispatch (an outsider) termed Ferguson a Ghetto. He never bothered to drive around and look at the nice neighborhoods in old Ferguson. So Ferguson went to hell because of the Pro Lifers. It is coming to a theatre near you.
Catholics are a disgrace to the human race and as the Australians say: their “boomerang wont come back”. And yes, Catholics think like Aborigines.
” And yes, Catholics think like Aborigines.” Sorry, WTF?
So, a mother can kill her unborn child, but according to fetal homicide laws in 38 states, no one else can? I’m just trying to understand the logic.
Mike,
That poor dead woman in Texas, being forced to incubate the fetus despite the familiy’s request to end life support was obscene, disgusting and ghoulish.
And Mr.Forget still pines for the days of tricornered hats, when men were men, but only if they were land owners.
Mike, exactly right,
If life begins at conception those fertilized eggs at the Fertility Clinic are most assuredly ‘murdered’ when they are destroyed or too old to be safe to use, if one considers abortion of a non viable fetus to be murder. When will the abortion police come to arrest the medical staff and owners of the fertility clinic? As for the moral high ground those sliced and diced kids at Sandy Hook were already born breathing thinking and feeling human beings with fully formed nervous systems. Where is the moral high ground pro lifers outrage over lax gun laws? There is something rotten in Denmark… er the U.S.
Inga – have you not heard of compartmentalization? People can hold views in one area and seemingly conflicting views on another.subject.
Fetal homicide laws also present moral and ethical questions. The pregnant woman was injured? shot? and hospitalized. She later dies but the fetus is still alive and the hospital acts to keep that fetus alive until it is viable. One dead mom acting as host.
Anyone uncomfortable with that?
Mike –
I am not only comfortable with it, I think it is the duty of the hospital to do so.
Ha. forgotwho prompted a thought.
What about IVF and embryo reductions? Are those abortions? The moral high road is a rocky path.
Mike –
For me it an abortion and murder.
I don’t get it.
A woman can murder an entirely several human being in her womb
but a man can’t murder a renter in a room in his house, right?
And a resident can’t murder his neighbor.
What’s the prime criterion? Location, location, location.
Murder is ok if your victim is young enough.
Perhaps the state should euthanize murderous mothers and save the whales. Oops. I mean babies.
That is the stupidest (and most unfortunate for the baby) thing I have ever heard.
That’s not a woman’s body, that’s a separate person’s body.
How is America forced to hear and accept such rubbish? By what means?
Men can’t be sexist but women can murder babies.
Americans can’t have constitutional arms but women can murder babies.
10 or 20 victims are criminally shot but women can murder 50 million babies since 1973 and disarticulate
their bodies for marketing.
Oh, oh, You don’t suppose it’s that pesky 19th Amendment – the murder amendment?
We now know why the Founders established a restricted-vote republic – 21, male, European with 50 lbs.
Sterling or 50 acres.
So women could have the babies and nurture them – not murder them.
THE INMATES HAVE TAKEN OVER THE ASYLUM.
Let me know when any of those 38 states seek to imprison the dead pregnant woman for aborting the fetus or the doctor for aborting the fetus. That’s what we’ve been talking about.
Darren said:
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.
I question the truth of that statement. See my comment @ 12:10.
I believe their moral position is abandoned rather easily. And it is surely abandoned by the time a child is seven. The twenty kids at Sandy Hook were seven years old. They remain dead. They were sliced and diced by many bullets. They were sliced and diced just as fetal tissue is sliced and diced. Except those kids saw their friends slaughtered before their horrified eyes and were sprayed by their blood knowing that they would be next.
I do more than question Darren’s statement. I call it total BS. I wish fiercer invective was permitted.
38 states have fetal homicide laws, including some pretty liberal states like California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Colorado, Wisconsin, etc. That means if you kill a pregnant woman and the unborn baby dies, that is a homicide for killing the baby, Anyone see the hypocrisy? Discuss, and try not to fling your own poo as you do.
Another question I would ask of Darren’s serious essay on morals and ethics and human life.
At what stage and for what reason is there a shift in the sanctity of human life?
Is the moral and ethical high ground ceded when one sanctions the death penalty? What about when innocent men are executed? Is the moral and ethical high ground ceded when a hospital is bombed or when we go to pre-emptive war in Iraq? How about when we shot down the Iranian commercial airliner? Did we retain the moral high ground then? How about when we nuked Japan – twice? Yes, I know the argument. But really. Our invasion forces were military men – kids having their faces melt were not military. Are those children not as sacred as our newborns? Can you make a moral and ethical case for Nagasaki? If you can, could that same argument be cited by North Korea if they nuked South Korea or Japan?
Annie
IMO, a little more serious thinking is required if the anti-choice people get their way.
Women and girls will continue to have sex. Women and girls will have unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. Women and girls will have abortions. Some will try to end their pregnancies by themselves and some will find a doctor for help.
Now what is the plan for such women and doctors? Tell me WTF the anti-choice people intend to do if abortion is criminalized?
Mike, I do agree with you that Pro LIifers see themselves has having the moral high ground, but they once again are shortsighted and fail to see the human suffering that making abortion a crime would create.
No one can blame people for sticking to principle and for following their moral compass, but it seems we can’t dictate the right a woman to autonomy over her own body. Talking away this right has all sorts of serious repercussions which have been now discussed at length. I thank everyone for a mostly civil conversation. As these types of discussions go, nobody probably changed anyone’s mind, but it’s still good to express our opinions on such an extremely important topic.
Nor has anyone responded to the ethical positions of pro-lifers who kill doctors, burn and bomb clinics, harass and threaten providers, who falsely accuse Planned Parenthood of profiting from the sale of fetal tissue, and politicians who pander to the production of such slime.
How ethical and moral are those people?
Pathetic. If you are a Christian, you shame your faith.