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.
Medicaid would not pay for an abortion in a ROUTINE pregnancy, to be clear.
*Paid for by Medicaid.*
Karen guessed,
“Any abortion provider can provide a “medically necessary” reason because pregnancy carries some risk.”
Completely wrong. A woman cannot get an abortion paid for because a pregnancy could carry some risk. The woman would have to present for an abortion with some MEDICALLY NECESSARY reason.
Karen, again you nit pick and try to twist people’s meaning to fit your narrative. You attempted to say that women were waltzing into abortion clinics perfectly healthy and getting them paid for by Medicaid. You were wrong. I was right, the health of the mother ( which includes her life, duh) is what would make her eligable for a Medicaid funded abortion. Too often any dicussion with you gets bogged down in your attempts at a “gotcha” and too often your “gotcha” only gets you. I forgot why I in the past avoided conversations with you. You reminded me today.
The Guttmacher link shows that those states are following the Hyde Amendment other than 3 which will provide abortions for fetal impairment.
My guess those fetal impairments are pretty severe.
Annie:
The internet is forever. You said:
“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?”
You were utterly and completely wrong. The Hyde Amendment provides only for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Any abortion provider can provide a “medically necessary” reason because pregnancy carries some risk.
I live in Liberal utopia, where Medical, the state equivalent of Medicaid, pays for abortion.
“Danger to the life of the mother” IS a medical necessity. Sheesh.
Women cannot just have an abortion and have it paid for by Medicaid UNLESS IT IS MEDICALLY NECESSARY. Get it now?
Jesus Karen, what do you not understand about the words MEDICALLY NECESSARY? That is my point.
Compared with the Hyde Amendment, which only allows abortion in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.
“ 32 states and the District of Columbia follow the federal standard and provide abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape and incest.
3 of these states also provide state funds for abortions in cases of fetal impairment.
3 of these states also provide state funds for abortions that are necessary to prevent grave, long-lasting
damage to the woman’s physical health.
1 state provides abortions only in cases of life endangerment, in apparent violation of the federal standard.
17 states use state funds to provide all or most medically necessary abortions. 4 of these states provide such funds voluntarily.
13 of these states do so pursuant to a court order.”
From the Guttmacher link.
Annie:
It’s true. You don’t read your own links.
From your OWN link:
17 states use state funds to provide all or most medically necessary abortions.
Annie:
Seriously, READ the links. Even the ACLU disagrees with you. If you’re not going to go the trouble of actually reading the facts presented to you, then you’re just here to argue for no purpose.
From the ACLU:
“Public Funding for Abortion
U.S. Map Illustrating Current Public Funding Restrictions
What is the Hyde Amendment?
Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman’s life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
Most states have followed the federal government’s lead in restricting public funding for abortion. Currently only seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. (See map.) Four of these states provide funding voluntarily (HI, MD, NY,1 and WA); in thirteen, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV).2 Thirty-two of the remaining states pay for abortions for low-income women in cases of life-endangering circumstances, rape, or incest, as mandated by federal Medicaid law.3 (A handful of these states pay as well in cases of fetal impairment or when the pregnancy threatens “severe” health problems, but none provides reimbursement for all medically necessary abortions for low-income women.) Finally, one state (SD) fails even to comply with the Hyde Amendment, instead providing coverage only for lifesaving abortions.”
Thus confirming that 17 states use public funds to get around the Hyde Act and pay for abortions.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf
State funding of abortion under Medicaid. It’s been mentioned at several points in this long discussion that Medicaid will only pay for an abortion for the health of the mother.
From the second Pro Choice link on Medical:
“Medi-Cal pays for pregnancy-related health care—including prenatal care, delivery, post-partum care and abortion—if your income is very low. You can apply for this program even if you are a minor or an undocumented immigrant. Medi-Cal services are confidential.”
From the first Pro Choice link on Medicaid:
“Medicaid covers abortion in 15 states in the U.S. If you live in one of the states below, click on the state name to be taken to some instructions about how to enroll in Medicaid quickly. If you want to use Medicaid to cover your abortion, you must live in and have your abortion in the same state. Your Medicaid coverage will not follow you if you need to travel out of state.
If you do not live in one of these 15 states, your Medicaid will not cover your abortion. Many clinics offer discounts for women who are enrolled in Medicaid. Read more about those discounts.
Be confident when you apply and know that, if you qualify for Medicaid, you have the right to receive abortion coverage and enroll in a timely manner.
When applying, be sure to tell your caseworker that you are pregnant and would like the application process to be expedited. You do not need to tell them you are planning to have an abortion.
Federal Poverty Guidelines are often used to determine Medicaid eligibility. However, in some states that cover abortion, pregnant women may have a higher income than the guidelines for other people. Check the specific income guidelines for your state below.”
This may help those who do not actually read the links.
Annie,
I would support any healthcare provider that had as their mission to care for the health of all life. If PP did not provide services that terminated life then they would have my support. To keep their ‘ending pregnancy’ services under the umbrella of PP, they are able to shield that function under the guise of women’s healthcare. If the ‘ending pregnancy’ service is a necessary function then it should be able to stand alone, outside of the PP umbrella. Would you support ending that function within PP and require it to be it’s own, privately funded service and thus keeping PP a publicly subsidized health care service?
Please see my link on how to get a non-medically necessary abortion under Medicaid in 15 different states.
In the other states, it is medically necessary. In these 15, the states simply filtered their own Medicaid funds in order to pay for it.
The link is a Pro Choice link, so I’m sure it will be acceptable.
Oh, and my parents are adamantly Pro Life, and they adopted. However, they did not adopt my sibling to make a political statement or feel good about themselves. They adopted because they wanted a child.
Karen, whether the state pays for it under their Medicaid or federal funds pays for it, the abortion MUST BE MEDICALLY NECESSARY. This is the law.