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.
Mike,
Assuming is the first step; all based on your body of work in this thread. That’s all I have to go by and that’s why it’s called an assumption. Prove it wrong is the second step; that’s on you. I’m prepared to admit my assumption to be wrong but to this point you’ve provided nothing to refute it.
I’ll wait.
Olly
I assume? I assume? What a joke. How’s this for making assumptions?
‘That stomach-turning you’ve been feeling is not because others are speaking falsehoods; it’s your internal moral compass telling you that you are trying to point in a direction that MUST ignore facts. I know first hand because I used to do the same thing. You’ll deny it of course because that’s what is done when you lack the humility to admit you MIGHT be wrong.’
Hey Olly.
I called another clinic. I asked for an abortion. They said how many weeks. I said 14. They said it is $800 dollars. I said I’ll pay cash. They said fine, come in Wednesday.
Independent verification done.
All perfectly legal.
“Sorry, Olly. It strikes me as coming close to fetish-sizing and placing the kid on display on a matter that he might prefer to be kept private.”
Mike,
You have no idea whatsoever what the content of the powerpoint presentation was and yet you have concluded that? Here is your pattern: you assume you know something, you are proven wrong and then you double-down. At some point you have to realize it’s important to investigate the facts BEFORE going on record, not AFTER.
More willful ignorance.
If the purpose of women is to bear and nurture babies to perpetuate the species,
what is the purpose of women who have abortions that terminate the species,
Hedonism?
Hey Olly.
I called a clinic. I asked for an abortion. They said no.
Independent verification done.
Mike,
I stepped out to attend Church; interesting to see you still have your fingers stuck in your ears going, “lalalalalalala”. If you enter into a debate unwilling to make use of your God-given ability to think critically then you are at best an ideologue and at worst a troll. That stomach-turning you’ve been feeling is not because others are speaking falsehoods; it’s your internal moral compass telling you that you are trying to point in a direction that MUST ignore facts. I know first hand because I used to do the same thing. You’ll deny it of course because that’s what is done when you lack the humility to admit you MIGHT be wrong.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
We have an obligation not to ideas but to truth. Even when truth is inconvenient to one’s long-held beliefs, it’s the truth that stands by itself. You may not like or trust Karen, you can deny she has ever uttered a a truth, but when presented with options to independently verify and then choose to ignore it!? That SHOULD turn your stomach. That is called WILLFUL IGNORANCE.
So for “pro-lifers”, we are obligated to speak of the evil that allows a culture to accept killing of innocent, unborn children under the name of women’s reproductive rights. “MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS” should never be acceptable when it comes to securing the life of innocent human beings.
And that’s a funny thing about repetition. I’m pretty sure we all do it.
How many times have I read about ‘stepping up your game”?
How many, many times about ‘inalienable rights’?
How many times have I read about how someone is ‘sad’?
How many times have I read about cocked shotguns and military dads and restaurant families and 30 years of observation skills?
Have you spoken others about your concerns?
Throughout 40,000 years of human history, adoption has accommodated.
Since the 19th Amendment and Planned Parenthood, abortion has been imposed.
America, through its birthrate, is in a “death spiral.”
The sole purpose of mankind is perpetuation of the species. No other action of man will persist.
The birthrate involves women bearing and nurturing babies, not aborting them.
Abortionists and homosexuality represent suicide by the species. There is no future in abortion and
homosexuality. Is suicide of the species the good, just and honorable goal the American Founders
expounded on.
What have neurotic, psychotic, parasitic, collectivist, socialist liberal democrats done?
What “fresh hell” have they visited on us today?
__________
Adoption – Rational
Abortion – Murder
Next question.
Dusty
There was a lengthy discussion with questions. Imagine that. Questions. No name calling. And nobody played.
But thank you for your polite and thoughtful analysis of the ‘cruddy and boring’ thread consisting of 371 comments. Your game is something to which we can all aspire. Maybe if we’re lucky we can hear all about how your barbecue went. Haven’t you posted recipes in the past? That’s showing us how it is done.
DBQ, Max hasn’t even commented today. What you folks can’t stand IS discussion. Which includes graphics, videos, links, etc. It’s easy to just blah blah blah without backing up any of your assertions. It’s boring and not very intelligent. No one is stopping any of you from participating, but I guess it’s not fun to participate when you have NO good argument. Now I’m off to MY function. I’m sure I’ll come back to see a lively intelligent discussion among you folks, lol.
” What you folks can’t stand IS discussion. Which includes graphics, videos, links, etc.” But just not MY links and videos, hmmm? Yes, I see how it is! 😀
Powerpoint.
Oh that makes it so much more digestible.
Sorry, Olly. It strikes me as coming close to fetish-sizing and placing the kid on display on a matter that he might prefer to be kept private.
Notice how the other kids have taken their ball and gone home? I swear – someone sends out an email or twitter ordering the troops into radio silence.
Actually, the reality is that you are boring the crud out of us. I’m interested actual discussion. Not the Max and Inga dog and pony show. I’m interested in discussion not name calling and insulting.
Cutting and pasting other people’s talking points over and over. Pasting and spamming videos and cartoons. Not an elevating discussion. Boooooring.
Besides. I’m housecleaning in anticipation of a party/bbq this week and plan to spend my productive time reading a book on my deck, in the sun, drinking a glass of scotch (or two)….right after my nap.
Step up your game and stop being so boring and repetitive and perhaps some of the kids will play with you again.
“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.”
Mike,
LOL! Oh the horror. Imagine yourself actually having all the facts before you allow your stomach to turn.
The Church DID NOT discuss and name this SNOW child or her family. The mother asked our Pastor if SHE could use one of our Bible studies to discuss this issue. SHE used a powerpoint presentation to explain the history of embryo adoption and how her family was blessed to have this child.
Keep looking to God though. Well done there.
Hilde
Thanks for the clarification.
If you get something in moderation, most likely it is a technical glitch. Best to just repost
What is Hillary Clinton’s position on abortions? Has she ever had one? What is Biden’s position? He is a Cat O Lic and my memory tells me that he recently called himself Pro Life. What is Bernie Sander’s position? The Donald’s? Ben Carson’s? Rubio’s? Cruz’s? Bushieboy’s?
Is there a division on this abortion topic between Catholics and non Catholics? Does the Party make a difference? Vive le difference!
Annie Oct 11 1:52pm:
“The state and other busybodies should not get between a woman and her doctor.”
I agree. Stop putting taxpayer money between the woman and the doctor. Or did you not mean what you said?
Mike,
I think they don’t like it when they’re challenged. I’ve got to leave too actually, have a function to attend, good discussion for the most part.
Hey, Annie.
Notice how the other kids have taken their ball and gone home? I swear – someone sends out an email or twitter ordering the troops into radio silence.
But that would be crazy thinking, right?
Annie, pretty disgusting, huh?
Now a former Benghazi investigator is making a stink. It will be interesting to see how that works out. He could be loony, but it can’t be making the Republicans happy.
And an investigator on the Bergdahl affair doesn’t recommend jail time. Heads will explode.
And two independent investigators on the Cleveland shooting of the twelve year old say the shooting was justified. Hard to understand that one.