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.
So for the True Believers, here is an article where Planned Parenthood sued Alaska because it defined what is “medically necessary.”
http://www.alaskacommons.com/2015/08/27/alaska-superior-court-strikes-down-medicaid-abortion-restrictions
Planned Parenthood repeatedly sues every time “medically necessary” was defined.
As the judge stated who threw out the medically necessary definition:
“Simply put, an unwanted pregnancy is a crisis for any woman,” Suddock wrote. “To an impoverished woman without recourse to an abortion, the crisis may be extreme.”
There. THAT ought to clear up that medically necessary means the woman is pregnant and doesn’t want it. This is the judge’s own words. You can also look up Planned Parenthood’s briefs on the matter.
Karen says:
Believe me, or don’t believe me
Karen, I don’t believe you.
I believe Guttmacher. Your information is very often very flawed and twisted.
Karen suddenly introduces “insurers” into her argument. We’re talking about government funding aren’t we? What’s this about insurers?
I don’t give a damn what Alaska legislates. They elect the likes of Don Young and Sarah Palin. Dumb folks up there.
Here’s what I have noticed.
I have listed multiple pro-choice links on how to get an abortion through Medicaid, as well one conservative link on the Alaska law.
The Pro Choice crowd completely ignored the Pro Choice links, and claimed my answer was moot because of the single conservative one.
And they appear to not be taking me up on the offer to simply call and ask a provider themselves.
If that’s not the definition of a true believer blind to all contradictory facts, then I don’t know what is.
Whoops, mean to say “medical-funded”
Mike:
“Karen, National Review is a Republican political publication who publish opinions. They are not a reputable source.
Many consider medically necessary a reasonable standard.
We know you don’t, Karen.
Thanks for responding.”
Okay, how about you read the Pro Choice links I provided, including one from the ACLU? Or have a woman call an abortion provider and ask how she can get a Medicaid funded abortion if she’s healthy and so is the fetus?
You know . . . investigate.
I have you at an advantage, because I live in Liberal Utopia California, where Medicaid funded abortions are discussed and promoted ALL THE TIME, as well as the “medically necessary” phrase being applicable to everything.
Let’s think about an abortion at 29 weeks.
A handicapped child was killed at 29 weeks, well after you can actually see the baby kicking inside the mother, moving her belly. 3rd trimester abortions are partial birth abortions, where the baby is delivered but the skull is pierced before the baby is exposed to air and can draw her first breath. They call that “eugenics.” That is also the reason for many infanticides around the world.
29 weeks . . . that’s just gross. If a person of any age was in constant agony, that is a legitimate discussion for mercy euthanasia. But mental impairment, such as Down’s syndrome, is not constant unrelenting agony. And arguments have been made for Gosnell-style full term abortions of babies with Downs syndrome and other mental handicap.
I don’t think 29 weeks is a rallying cry that will gather much support, as the overwhelming majority of people oppose 3rd trimester partial birth abortions.
“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.”
No, Annie. You are utterly and completely wrong. Again. Please see the objections to the Alaska definition of medically necessary, which had an actual list. Opponents want the term to mean anything the doctor can come up with. As noted before, CA insurers, as wells as insurers in other states, consider ALL abortions medically necessary.
Wishful thinking does not replace facts.
Karen
Sounds like you’re ready for a job with James O’Keefe. Go for it! Congress no-nothings will eat it up!
But let’s be kind to Karen today. She must be going crazy with Brown’s new voting law.
Karen, National Review is a Republican political publication who publish opinions. They are not a reputable source.
Many consider medically necessary a reasonable standard.
We know you don’t, Karen.
Thanks for responding.
Mike – National Review is a conservative journal, but not part of the GOP. Unlike HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC who meet with the Obama people regularly and get their talking points.
And if you STILL don’t believe me then pose as a healthy pregnant woman with a healthy fetus and call abortion providers asking about Medicaid or Medical abortions.
“You attempted to say that women were waltzing into abortion clinics perfectly healthy and getting them paid for by Medicaid. You were wrong.”
Actually, I’m completely right. First you said the Hyde Amendment restricted abortions to rape, incest, or the health of the mother. Wrong. 17 states found a way around that. Then you said that healthy women do not waltz into abortion clinics to get abortions paid for by Medicaid.
Wrong again. They can cha cha, West Coast Swing, two step, or merely stroll, because insurers consider all abortions medically necessary, including Medicaid funded care. In fact, this is such a problem that Alaska recently had to pass a law defining “medically necessary” as something other than anything an abortion provider thinks up. If you’re healthy, and have a healthy fetus, an abortion provider can still give you a medically necessary abortion because even healthy pregnancies carry some risk.
Believe me, or don’t believe me, but there are plenty of Pro Choice websites explaining this for those seeking subsidized abortions. I’ve already provided several Pro Choice links, which you have blithely ignored.
Here is a link describing the Alaska law. Note that opponents believe that the term “medically necessary” is no one’s business but the woman and her doctor, which literally makes every single abortion medically necessary. It’s a phrase with no meaning.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/04/18/alaska-law-limits-abortions-can-deemed-medically-necessary/
Annie, yes, I’m not big on children suffering or subjecting them to painful procedures with no possible relief.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/late-term-abortion-29-weeks-dana-weinstein
“When Dana Weinstein talks about her second child, she refers to her “angel baby.” In the summer of 2009, with a 2 1/2-year-old son and a daughter on the way, the Weinsteins were looking forward to completing their family. Then tragedy struck. After a sonogram 29 weeks into her pregnancy, Weinstein learned her daughter’s brain hadn’t formed properly and that the baby would face severe health and mental problems, if it survived at all. Several weeks later, she made the painful decision to end the pregnancy before “Baby W” was born. Now Weinstein fears that if Republican legislators around the country succeed in banning abortions after 20 weeks, many women in similar situations will no longer have the option that she did.”
*****************
I guess Paul would put this mother into the same category of Hitler.
Annie – yes, the mother is in the same category as Hitler and his henchmen.
Here the NM Supreme Court found the Hyde restrictions discriminatory and requires the state to pay for all medically necessary abortions for low income:
http://www.healthlaw.org/issues/reproductive-health/health-care-refusals/new-mexico-supreme-court-requires-medicaid-to-cover-all-medically-necessary-abortions#.VhqUJ84jG1w
What is “medically necessary”? CA insurers considers all abortions medically necessary.
http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/385178/are-all-abortions-medically-necessary-wesley-j-smith
Ah. The Hitler argument. Too much Dr. Carson. But thanks for responding.
That should be the suffering of the Infant, as it’s already born.
Mike I’ve heard Pro Lifers who have come out strongly against abortions in the case of fetal impairment. They think it’s kinder to allow the child to be born and then die hours or days or weeks later. The suffering of the fetus somehow gets brushed under the rug.
Interesting. Perhaps the question of fetal impairment is too difficult to approach and that accounts for the silence from those who are so often vocal. They prefer The Black – The White. Grey is so much harder to wrestle.
Mike – there is not excuse for killing a baby because of ‘fetal impairment.’ Hitler did that at the beginning of his reign of terror. He had handicapped people sent to facilities and then had them killed. Murder is murder.
Annie
Perhaps Olly, Karen, Dr. Schulte, or Nick will favor us with their opinion.
Mike, thank goodness that those three states provide for a Medicaid funded abortion in the case of fetal impairment and yes I’m assuming that very few people would be against such an abortion.
Annie
Ideologues are difficult. But today’s low was imagining a church discussing, and naming, a SNOW child that attends their church.
It turns my stomach. Somehow, I think it must turn god’s stomach, too.