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.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/09/gops_case_against_planned_parenthood_collapses_jason_chaffetz_admits_he_uncovered_no_wrongdoing/
GOP’s case against Planned Parenthood collapses: Jason Chaffetz admits he uncovered no wrongdoing.
As if truth-telling worked out so well for his colleague Kevin McCarthy, Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz has just admitted that the GOP’s investigation into Planned Parenthood’s misuse of federal funds turned out to be a dud.
“Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn’t find any,” Huffington Post’s Jennifery Bendery reports the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman admitted during yet another hearing on Thursday.
No, Hilde. You didn’t say ‘until proven otherwise’. You said they were hoaxes. You said Sandy Hook was a hoax.
You’re entitled to your beliefs. But don’t lie about what was said.
Mike, “No, Hilde. You didn’t say ‘until proven otherwise’. You said they were hoaxes. You said Sandy Hook was a hoax. You’re entitled to your beliefs. But don’t lie about what was said.”
You’re right and wrong about that.
My comment of October 10, 2015 at 5:34 pm is STILL awaiting ‘moderation’. The statement I made, should it ever be released from the comment police (lol) says, “The power possessors are getting desperate to take our guns, don’t you know? ALL of these shootings are phony fake shows unless proven otherwise.”
And yes, I did say Sandy Hook was is a hoax, con, deception….
That sliding scale on the Hyde amendment? That scale moves BOTH ways.
Life begins at conception. That’s new.
Beyond 20 weeks banned. That’s new.
Beyond 12 weeks banned. That’s Very new.
Fetus feels pain. That’s new.
Rape not an exception. That’s new.
Incest not an exception. That’s new.
So far I guess they’re willing to save a woman’s life. I wonder how long that will last.
Annie “And Hilde, Sorry but your credibility is also severely lacking. Anyone who thinks all those mass shootings were hoaxes just doesn’t seem like a reasonable reliable source.”
I said hoaxes until proven otherwise, but I’m okay with you lumping me into unreliable sources. Just because you don’t understand my viewpoint doesn’t mean I’m confused. My mother taught me that.
The Judge in Karen’s article expanded the definition of what “medical necessity” encompasses. Good for him, good work Judge!
Wait a minute.
Is someone concerned because Planned Parenthood to suing in order to protect the right to abortion?
The nerve of PP!
I thought the right to sue was ONLY legitimate for the Right. And for Republicans in congress. (Those are MY tax dollars, too, fellas. Notice how there is no concern about MY tax dollars?)
I. don’t. believe. her. either.
And Hilde,
Sorry but your credibility is also severely lacking. Anyone who thinks all those mass shootings were hoaxes just doesn’t seem like a reasonable reliable source.
Karen
I. don’t. believe. you.
I don’t respect your sources. Post something from John Birch and you’re off my list of believable people and on the the list of ideologues.
If one were to believe you, one would think Obamacare has driven all doctors in California out of business.
I. don’t. believe. you.
You have repeated one incredible personal anecdote after another. Personal anecdotes are THE most unreliable and pathetic method of argument.
I. don’t. believe. you.
Give up on me. I’m a lost cause. I don’t respect your sources, your personal anecdotes or your handling of an argument or your predictable rhetorical flourishes.
So put me on your list of lost causes. Go ahead. I don’t mind at all.
Karen, if you are so concerned about all the abortions being performed perhaps you could channel some of that angst and take in a few foster children. Maybe then you wouldn’t be so consumed with what goes on between a woman and her doctor.
Inga – where the heck do you get this flawed logic that each abortion equals one less child in foster care?
“3 Reasons to Stop Saying “Abortion Is Only 3% of Planned Parenthood”
https://skepticallibertarian.liberty.me/3-reasons-to-stop-saying-abortion-is-only-3-of-planned-parenthood/
12% of customers, 14% of income, 52% of sales revenue — abortion is a big part of Planned Parenthood. Most people recognize that, and this transparent “3%” shiftiness just gratifies the idea that abortion is illicit.
The doctor determines what is medically necessary, and THAT is as it should be. The state and other busybodies should not get between a woman and her doctor. Good for Planned Parenthood for suing.
We have all seen the sliding scale from the Hyde amendment means that no abortion is covered unless it’s rape, incest, or the health of the mother at stake . . . to no healthy women can waltz in and get a subsidized abortion . . . to it’s none of our beeswax.
That goal post just keeps moving.
“What is SO difficult in understanding the criteria of medically necessary?”
Well, apparently Planned Parenthood thinks it’s really difficult, because every time a state tries to define it, they sue. They literally do not want a definition, because they want subsidized on demand abortions. Any unwanted pregnancy is a crisis that is medically necessary to terminate.
Even Gosnell performed “medically necessary” full term abortions.
Annie, you ask “Hildy, “Feminine values”? What are those? Please elaborate.”
I am referring to feminine vs masculine qualities. Values might be a poor choice of words. According to Carl Jung everyone has both. There are men who are more feminine; Jesus was one of them. Joan of Arc was a more masculine woman.
Negative masculine: aggressive, violent, destructive
Positive masculine: Initiative, creativity, adventure
Negative feminine: inactivity, indifference, lethargy
Positive feminine: receptivity, detachment, pools of energy
Yin: female, passive, negative principle in nature
Yang: positive, active, male principle in nature
Other positive qualities/values considered feminine: sensitivity, loving, dancing, singing, nurturing. Nature itself is considered feminine.
Many women are so focused on the home; somebody to love, food, shelter, a little warmth around the home, being a mother- finished. My point is that so-called “feminists” seem to have little use for such (in their view) ‘simpletons’.
Mike:
“As for a ‘true believer’? Thou needest to look in thine mirror.” I’m sorry. I’m having difficulty formulating a reply because I’m laughing.
I’ve given you pro choice links explaining how healthy women can get an abortion, and I’ve also explained how you can ascertain for yourself that this is true.
And your answer is that I”m a true believer? Seriously? Because that doesn’t mean what you apparently think it means.
Anyone who opposes actually defining medically necessary means that they support on demand abortion. Because as the judge stated in the earlier post, any unwanted pregnancy is a crisis and can be considered medically necessary.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that healthy women cannot “waltz” into an abortion provider for a Medicaid or Medical abortion, and yet also claim that medically necessary should not be defined.
What is SO difficult in understanding the criteria of medically necessary? If the doctor or team of doctors deems it medically necessary it is. It is not our within our purview to decide what is medically necessary. If Karen wished perhaps she could lobby to have her criteria included in what she feels is a medical necessity. A woman’s health care is betwee her and her doctor, or should be. The rest of the busybodies should mind their own business.
Karen
Is that what you do – call, pose and investigate?
Sorry. I think that’s weird. Besides, we can count on James O’keefe to do that work, can’t we? In fact there is no shortage of the outfits that will produce slime. Have you noticed that, Karen?
I’m not impressed by advertising. Ads are often misleading and overly broad – like your comments.
As for a ‘true believer’? Thou needest to look in thine mirror.
Nick – thanks.
I wonder how many people still believe that a healthy woman with a healthy fetus can’t get a medicaid-or-Medical-funded abortion after all these links and a court case, just because they don’t want it to be true. It can be so hard to fight conditioning. I’ve seen the True Believer mentality on full display on this thread.
Mike:
“What’s this about insurers?” Well, there is the subsidized ACA, so there’s that. And I’ve already listed enough links as well as an option for you to find out tomorrow from 9-5 with a simple phone call about Medicaid and Medical, PLUS multiple Pro Choice links on how a poor woman can obtain a subsidized abortion.
Am I still not making any sense to you? Because I’d try interpretive dance but I can’t upload a video.
Mike:
Call an abortion provider and ask, then. You don’t have to believe me. But if you won’t believe a judge (see above) then you’re hopeless.
Olly and Karen, Thanks for your thoughtful and intellectually honest replies to the utter hypocrisy of 38 states, many liberal, having fetal homicide laws while allowing abortion. I do not get emotional on this topic or capital punishment, both of which I am opposed. But, I truly do try and understand the thinking of pro abortion people. We 3 and a few others are being forthcoming and intellectually honest. The cowardice of pro abortion people to even try and respond to the fetal homicide/abortion hypocrisy pretty much says it all. As I have said many times, when I am interviewing a witness I often learn the truth by what they DON’T say, or studiously avoid.