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.
Olly
And everyone knows his name. How jolly.
Annie and Mike – My basic proposition is that tax payers should not be coerced to pay for an action which violates their religious faith. I hold that position for any religion. They may violate their own faith voluntarily if they so desire. The government should not impose it on them.
I said abortions should be safe and legal. Why do you think you own the product of people’s lives? Why is it your right to force a country to pay for your actions? You can Hyde amendment all day, but the fact is that Planned Parenthood performs abortions and accepts taxpayer dollars. These two should never go hand in hand.
That’s pretty much like saying ‘We didn’t buy heroin for the homeless addict! We just bought his neeeedles!” Ya know, to make sure they were clean and he could be healthy. We are still against drug use. But if you’re gonna use, at least have clean needles. Why are you against clean needles? Do you want the user to become infected and use up even more taxpayer dollars on ER treatment? We already know druggies are going to use because they are ‘careless’ (remember Annie’s comment?), so why not subsidize their bad choices a little bit with taxpayer dough?
To be clear: The Spoon Amendment prohibits taxpayer funds from being spent on heroin. It merely supplies the needles for heroin use. What do people have against the other benefits of clean needles?
neighbordave:
“who have adopted out of the Foster Care system. NOT ONE HAND RAISED YET!”
Oh, how I adore that argument. I also oppose female genital mutilation, and yet I have never hosted a victim of FGM. I oppose infanticide and child abuse, and yet I have not adopted a child. I think the foster care system is broken and that too many foster homes do not love and cherish foster kids, and yet I have not yet served as a foster family. I oppose bride burning, but have not hosted a burned victim from India. I oppose crime, and yet I have not yet served on a neighborhood watch.
This is just a common logical fallacy that is not effective debate, and has nothing to do with the issues. I am sure that you have strong feelings on many social issues that you have not become directly involved with yet. I also oppose child labor and unsafe work practices, and yet since many items in my home (and yours) are made in China, I am sure that I indirectly benefitted from that abhorrent practice. Am I not allowed to say that Chinese manufacturing pollutes if I own a single item made in China?
It’s a great idea for couples who have extra frozen fertilized eggs to donate them to childless couples instead of destroying them, but there are some who may not want their biological child being raised by strangers. I doubt if those fertilized eggs will ever be protected by the state, unless Personhood laws are passed which gives rights to zygotes or embryos. I don’t know at what stage of development the fertilized egg is frozen.
Actually, Medicaid does pay for abortions in 15 states:
http://www.fundabortionnow.org/get-help/medicaid
The Hyde Amendment does not prevent states from using their own Medicaid money to cover abortions.
And Medical, California’s version of Medicaid, covers abortion, too.
http://www.yourhealthyourrights.org/index.php/help-and-resources/free-or-low-cost-programs/
Mike,
Yes, adopted, implanted and brought to term; and now in college.
neighbordave,
I have a a 7 year old adopted son through the Foster Care System.
I would say many of us think unborn life is sacred. I would not have an abortion, nor would I be on board if one of my daughters had needed an abortion. I would’ve tried talking them out of it, but ultimately it is their body, not mine. The issue is that we don’t have the right to tell women what they can or cannot do regarding their own reproductive healthcare, the state doesn’t own the woman’s body, Pro Lifers don’t own the woman’s body. The woman is the sole owner of her own body, the fetus that is not yet viable is a part of her body, until it can survive outside the body.
Wait.
SNOW children?
Are these SNOW children adopted, implanted, and brought to term?
If so, well okay then.
If not, you people are complete looney tunes.
For anti abortionists tolerance is a sin. I get that, but still. For me tolerance is a virtue.
I have one question I ask of anti abortion protested: OK, show of hands for those who have adopted out of the Foster Care system. NOT ONE HAND RAISED YET!
Medicaid does not pay for abortions except in the case of saving the woman’s life. How many times now have we said the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from paying for abortions? What moral objections do Pro Life people have against the other services Planned Parenthood provides? Do they object to the use of birth control? I’ve heard some extreme Pro Lifers coming out against women using birth control.
Olly:
That’s amazing to think that such a vulnerable embryo was saved and thrived. I think medical ethics are still playing catch up with technology and scientific advances.
Another interesting quandary is that anyone who has received certain vaccines has been exposed to fetal tissue used in medical research. Fetal tissues are sold or donated to medical research, used in stem cell lines, or even as dissection in medical schools. The argument that you can’t be in medicine, or benefit from medicine, and be Pro Life makes as much sense as claiming that you can’t oppose murder, and then later discover that the cadaver you practiced on in medical school was actually murdered and sold to science rather than the usual route of donated after death.
If this is the right video, this describes how an abortion provider yanks out a 2nd Trimester baby, piece by piece – pulling out an arm, a leg . . . I remember being shocked and appalled. I always associated the abortion debate with really early abortions, the old “ball of cells” argument that actually does not typically occur as this stage is passed before the mother realizes she’s even pregnant.
Karen,
We have a “snow child” at our Church. I believe her parents were the first to go the adoption process and there are certainly some ethical questions yet to be resolved. The courts as I understand it treat the embryo’s under property law. The mother testified before Congress and met with the President along with other snow children families.
Crowd sourcing for national social services.
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
Nick: I think the only way the law can be corrected so there is not this double standard, is to change the charge from murder to property damage. That would allow it to be illegal for anyone to terminate a pregnancy against the mother’s will, but OK for the mother to do it. But that designation isn’t going to sit well with many people.
I was just thinking the other day that terminating a pregnancy involves ending a life when the subject is unable and incapable of giving consent. This is counter balanced by the fact that pregnancy is a risk, and how much weight to give to the mother who does not wish to carry the child to term. We already limit that mother’s choice, because there are laws against late term abortion. At some point, she already loses the right to kill her unborn child at some point.
The majority of Americans believe there needs to be a law to limit abortions. If we let all mothers handle this decision privately between them and their doctors, that equates to more Kermit Gosnell clinics severing baby’s spinal cords as they draw their first breaths. But no matter where we set that limit, there are going to be those who dispute it. We can’t please all the people all of the time. We already have people pushing back on 20 week bans, and that’s when the mother can feel her baby kicking inside her. There’s no “ball of cells” fallacy at that point. An abortion would involve little hands, feet, arms, and legs lying in pieces on a pan, the very image of which would disturb most people.
I can’t watch videos due to internet limitations, but I believe this is the correct video describing a 2nd trimester abortion. This is just after 12 weeks to 24 weeks, the period of time when many abortions occur. This is also the hotly contested limitation.
Beldar, why is one’s religion relevant?
The unalienable right to life is not dependent on a belief in God; only a belief in creation. The fact we are typing away on our computers prove we have been created. We don’t need to agree on who created us but that we exist. The moment we are created we have unalienable rights. Those rights exist because we exist. The only other option is to believe we don’t have rights other than what comes from man. I do not need my religion to tell me my rights come from God. I can believe that is true, that God is my creator but an atheist can also hold these rights exist because he exists.
I don’t think Darren indicated that Pro-Life has all the moral high ground. He merely pointed out the same argument that the Pro Life movement has made; namely, that they equate abortion with infanticide.
Replace the word “abortion” with “strangling a newborn”. To a Pro Lifer, your argument becomes “You don’t know what you’re asking for when you want to ban strangling newborns.” Darren’s article puts the abortion argument into perspective, because the Pro Choice group does not seem able to understand this is where they’re coming from.
And of course extremists who murder or blow up buildings are wrong.
What I find very interesting is the phenomenon of “Snow Children.” These are embryos created at IVF clinics that are given up for adoption. It is indeed a challenging moral question for parents who create more embryos than they implant. What to do with the embryos they created if they have too many? There is at least one adoption center that specializes in these children. I find the photos very moving when I think these were children kept in some freezer as tiny embryos, and they would usually have been discarded as medical waste or medical research tissue.
I also think that too many women do not make an informed decision. They think a 12 week old fetus is just a ball of cells. That seems like a nasty trick to play on someone. At the very least, they need to be educated on fetal development.
Nick:
That is a challenging paradox – laws that state that it’s murder to kill an unborn child unless the mother does it, and then it’s not. I do agree with charging criminals for the death of the unborn child, but it’s impossible to have it both ways. How can it be murder if someone else does it, but not if the mother does so? I’m philosophically stuck on that.
Olly:
I agree that most Americans have beliefs on abortion somewhere in the middle of both extremes. What the Pro Choice group should understand is that the vast majority of people do agree that there needs to be some limits on abortion. For instance, an overwhelming majority oppose abortion in the last trimester when the infant could be safely delivered by C-Section. And of course Gosnell’s House of Horrors shocked and horrified most of us, and yet he not only had a line of women waiting to kill their healthy, late term ready to be born babies, but he had plenty of medical staff helping him. So clearly there are extremists among the Pro Choice group, as well.
So most people who identify as Pro Choice are actually in favor of limiting abortions. There is more common ground than people think. Since the government cannot please everyone, voters will have to pick a line and stick with it upon which to base a law, and then stick to their own personal code.
Nick,
I understand your point but do we need 38 states to tell us the answer to the question? I actually believe everyone is pro-life, but we are trying to justify when it should be okay to be pro-death. There are legitimate moral reasons to choose to end a life and the question is, what are the acceptable reasons?
The issue at hand is terminating the life of an unborn human being. My position is an innocent life is sacred and once created should be protected. I believe if the mother’s rights were violated in the creation of this life then morally she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. I also believe if the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy she should have the right to choose to continue the pregnancy. To be clear; in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother, it can be argued on moral grounds AND unalienable rights grounds that terminating the pregnancy can be justified.
The rest of this gibberish about what society does with a million “unwanted” babies, or who gets prosecuted, or cost to society and so on has nothing to do with the question. Those are reasons moral relativists use to justify nearly anything. You might as well say if a woman cannot breastfeed her baby that she has a right terminate because she doesn’t believe in formula. The excuses are endless and the motives and methods are used for any number of morally questionable decisions.
After reading the article, and the discussion- I find I am at the same spot. I think that this article has shown both sides the inevitable reality- they cannot agree, ever. They both hold absolute positions.
Abortions should be legal and safe, in the case of their necessity. Since we see extreme pro-life people will not waiver in their stance- isn’t it unconstitutional to force them to subsidize a service which violates their faith? The ideas held in this article lay the groundwork for any abortion service provider to never receive tax dollars.
Let the people who value abortive services keep them afloat, and let the people who would utilize them pay their own way. Let Planned Parenthood return to it’s main focus- counseling couples for their future family. (They are planning to be parents, right?)
Crowd source. We see any worthwhile cause raise an exponential sum of the original amount requested. That is the basic idea of the invisible hand of the free market. When people see something they support, they will support it. They do not need a government to tell them what their sensibilities are.