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.
Karen, Don’t waste your time w/ this person. The comments @ 6:58p and 8:06p are shoot from the hip, vapid, factually incorrect, I could go on? Of course you are intelligent, informed, logical, and know, if a person is criminally and felonious in operation of a motor vehicle, and kills an unborn child, that person is charged w/ homicide just like if he/she killed the driver of the another vehicle. This is the law in 38 states, many LIBERAL states, passed by LIBERAL legislators, signed by LIBERAL governors. These cases are prosecuted by LIBERAL prosecutors. Having worked for a prosecutors office, I know of what I speak. If we want to know the cost of corn nuts and Big Gulps, this other person is the go to guy.
“Of course you are intelligent, informed, logical, and know, if a person is criminally and felonious in operation of a motor vehicle, and kills an unborn child, that person is charged w/ homicide just like if he/she killed the driver of the another vehicle.”
That is an EXCELLENT point.
FYI, I’m a nurse but I’m wasn’t giving medical advice or speaking as a nurse here, most people probably understand this. I was speaking as a woman and a mother of four and as someone who respects the privacy of other’s choices. I do wonder about the mental acuityof some commenter’s, yes indeed. There is no need for any medical personnel to have had to comment in a thread like this to clarify anything. We ALL know what goes into decisions regarding our health care as patients and consumers of medical services. We ALL. have had to deal with insurance companies and doctors. This conversation deals with moral issues and privacy and personal choices, not anyone’s medical, opinions, which were not given.
LOL! And bring your thinking cap, this group does not trust, we verify. 🙂
Karen
BTW, until you present a LOT more facts, a lost pregnancy as the result of a traffic ACCIDENT cannot be charged as murder.
Boy. Gotta watch this group.
Karen
Furious relatives and survivors certainly can influence prosecutors and legislators. I don’t know why you have to say that so triumphantly. I posed it as a ‘thought’ – not a fact.
I think my comment addresses some of your hypotheticals. Just substitute your ‘ex’, ‘drunk driver’, ‘woman’, where I have written “person” or “perpetrator”, or ‘murderer’ or whatever noun I used.
Oh Karen, you’re too clever for me.
And yet I had hopes that my investigation would not be questioned. Surely you could see the time I spent carefully crafting my investigative report. I thought all anecdotal evidence supporting my position would be unquestioned. Why you use serendipitous anecdotes as proof of the veracity of your positions ALL the time. Further, I thought your instructions were that I call and ask for an abortion.. You forgot all the other stuff. Your list makes me think you have done quite a bit of this. You ARE a curious woman. Now I’m even more surprised that your medical insurance went unpaid and you neglected an appeal. Oh well. I guess we all have priorities.
And the $800 figure was just a lucky guess. I did not go fishing around a PP site to satisfy your suggestion that I just start calling clinics in order to give you a report on a subject about which you have no doubt. And as you have noted, there are a million situations which will determine what can be done, how it can be done, and how it is to be paid. An ad cannot verify anything.
Mike – any abortion provider who said they would give you an abortion at any price should have the licence revoked.
If the Catholic Church is against abortion then why can they not support the use of rubbers?
There are a ton of Catholics on the blog here so someone explain that one.
And this question as well. Why does the Catholic Church protect and sustain its pedophile priests?
Is it ok to pork a male child when you are an adult priest but not ok for an unmarried woman to pork a male?
Barkindog – the Catholic Church does not support contraception because it wants more congregants. This started early with the Church.
” Why does the Catholic Church protect and sustain its pedophile priests?” Why are they ALLOWED to protect and sustain it’s pedophile priests? Because there are no REAL men to arrest them? We’ve delegated all responsibility for these perverts to the church itself., i.e the wolf guarding the hen house. The pope should have been arrested the minute he set foot here. Isn’t it obvious that as a “society” we’ve given up? If it’s not abortion on demand as though a tooth is being pulled, it’s pedophiles given a blank check as long it’s in the name of “religion”. It’s all the same perversion, Roman empire style. And we know what happened to THEM.
Hildegard – the Catholic Church has done the same thing that public schools have done. Rather than make a big mess about it, they move them to another parish (school) hoping the problem will no longer be theirs. So, there are a lot of high school principals that should be heading for jail.
From what I see in the paper lately, the Catholic Church has been upfront about outing pedophile priests and turning them over to the police.
“From what I see in the paper lately, the Catholic Church has been upfront about outing pedophile priests and turning them over to the police.” You’re a funny one, Paul. First you trash the Catholic church, now you’re defending them. Are you an Enneagram type Six? The Devil’s Advocate? https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/
Or perhaps the fetal homicide law came about from the furious relatives or survivors of violent crime or traffic accidents who lost a child.
What about a pregnant woman whose ex punches her in the stomach so she loses the child? Or the pregnant woman murdered by her ex or some other criminal? What about the drunk driver who hits a pregnant woman and kills her baby? There was an infamous road rate incident this year between two women in which one woman caused an accident that killed the other’s unborn child.
So, no, it’s not just a law dreamed up by prosecutors.
Nick
Legislators write legislation. Some laws, far too many, are motivated by pure politics, some are motivated by stupidity, some are motivated by fear, some, too damn few, are motivated for the good of the people.
I THINK (I’m not sure) that fetal homicide laws were dreamed up by some zealous prosecutor who figured he would kill two birds with one law. First, he’d gain favor with the Right to Lifers – and they vote. Second, he’d be able to charge someone with two counts of murder – making even bigger headlines. So he called up his legislator friends and suggested the fetal homicide law.
I’m not torn up by this law.though I believe it was purely political. The mother is dead. The fetus is dead. The law impacts only the person charged with murder (so far as I know). The second charge of murder is simply redundant and politically opportunistic.
I also think I would not be torn up if the mother survives, the fetus does not, and the perpetrator is charged with murder. But it makes me a little nervous. One of those ‘grey’ issues that I spoke of earlier. I think there could be unforeseen consequences. I’d be careful on this one.
To head of the villagers and their torches, the woman is the decider. My opinion. Others will differ.
phillyT:
“So, given the argument (which I do not support), that a zygote or fetus is a person, does another person have a right to YOUR body?”
Currently, the law prevents full term abortions. So, yes, at some point, that fetus does already have a legal right to the woman’s body. She cannot kill a 9 month old fetus. She can have an elective C Section, but she can’t kill her unborn child if it’s far enough along in gestation.
Do you think that full term abortions are OK up until the moment of birth?
Nick:
What the Left has doggedly refused to address is that literally every abortion is considered “medically necessary”. As the judge in Alaska stated, an unplanned pregnancy is a crisis.
Many people believe that there is an actual medical condition that dictates a subsidized abortion – a health scare or the mother’s body just can’t carry to term. But the reality is that every unwanted pregnancy can be terminated as “medically necessary” merely because the woman does not want to carry to term.
I’ve even posted Pro Choice websites concerning this. I don’t know what mental gymnastics the Left has to undergo in order to ignore this and cling to the actual medical problem fallacy, but from this thread, they clearly do.
This is just another exploited loophole. If the American public realized that we are in fact paying for on demand abortions, some would object. Hence this quite vigorous pushback against the actual facts.
Mike:
“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.”
Oh, dear. You’ve been caught. You just lifted that amount from a Planned Parenthood website. But, unfortunately for you, that wasn’t the cost of an abortion. That was the cost of an abortion pill without any insurance or subsidy. I am also quite curious how you called an abortion provider just now, since PP is closed on Sunday . . . Also, did this magically open clinic discuss with you how to get Medicaid to pay for your abortion? Was the first clinic you “called” (on a Sunday) an abortion provider, or was it a Walgreens? Why did they say no? Was it because you are a man?
Actually, under Title X, women pay a sliding scale for fees with proof of low income. They will also help you apply for Medicaid to pay for your abortion. Plus, they accept most insurance, and as I’ve pointed out, insurers consider all elective abortions medically necessary, just like Medi-cal does.
“Additionally, Planned Parenthood can help you sign-up for other programs that will help pay for your services including Medicaid or the Family Planning Benefit Program (FPBP).”
Mike:
“There was a lengthy discussion with questions. Imagine that. Questions. No name calling. And nobody played.”
Actually, I posted information from the ACLU, and other Pro Choice websites, with a single conservative website, and you said you just didn’t believe me. Didn’t address any of the facts, or the judge’s comment. Just a childish I-don’t-want-it-to-be-true argument. So I saw no more point addressing the matter. If you asked me a question, I missed it. I just saw the I don’t believe you so there garbage.
Ironically, I was at a baby shower today.
5:43pm
The philosophy and ethics of suicide of the species.
If women do not bear and nurture babies to perpetuate the species there is no purpose.
Forget philosophy and ethics or convoluted, inane fantasies.
Species that have gone extinct don’t need them.
Extinct species have no need for protests against pro-lifers either.
The only purpose of mankind is perpetuation of the species.
A declining birthrate and abortion defeat that purpose.
This ridiculous discussion of auto-extinction can only be one of many deleterious, absurd and irrational
consequences of the misguided and wrong headed 19th Amendment, AKA a national psychosis.
THE INMATES HAVE TAKEN OVER THE ASYLUM.
KCF. There’s a neutral arbiter. Next we’ll be directed to Grover Norquist on the advisability of a tax increase.
Dusty
Name calling at 6:03.
We have people intellectually deficient to dispense information. It would be helpful if KFC, an RN, or even if an attorney who handles personal injury cases would chime in here. We have a person who loves to shoot from the hip claiming “The doctor determines what is medically necessary and that’s as it should be.” Actually, doctors do sometimes decide, but there are insurance companies, govt. bureaucrats and even juries[litigation] who often decide what is medically necessary all the time. Sometimes they make the primary decision and sometimes they overrule what a doctor deemed medically necessary.
The cowards still have not spoken about fetal homicide laws and the hypocrisy vis a vis abortion.
Way back in college, I took a couple of philosophy and ethics classes. One of the papers that was circulating was “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thomson. I don’t know how familiar people are with the argument, so in brief summary:
“You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.”
So, given the argument (which I do not support), that a zygote or fetus is a person, does another person have a right to YOUR body? Must you somehow be complicit? If so, would you hitting the famous violinist with your car and damaging his kidneys give his organization the right to your kidneys for nine months? If you are raped or an underage victim of abuse, does that fetus have a right to your body? And if so, why can’t we force people to give up organs or even blood to matching patients in need? Does the violinist have a right to life? How far does that go?
Or are we just talking about poor pregnant women?
phillyT –
I grew up in a community surrounded by pregnant women, including my mother and not once did I hear them referred to as poor pregnant women. It is not a disease.
Olly says about Mike:
“Here is your pattern: you assume you know something, you are proven wrong and then you double-down.”
The subject was my reaction to a church discussing the nature of the conception and birth of a member of that church. I said that made my stomach turn.
Olly, just how was I ‘proven wrong’? It’s my reaction, Olly. Unless you are trying to say I am lying about my reaction, It’s not a fact to be proven true or false.
Which is it, Olly?
Is it that you know what I think, what I feel, what I will think, what my internal compass tells me I must think, and what I will deny? And you know this from my body of work (what a pretentious joke) on this thread.
Or is it that you don’t know what I think and would I kindly point you to the specific comment.
How about you read the thread – you’ll find my ‘body of work’ there. And I think I may have mentioned my position a time or two.
By the way Mike,
I’ve been wrong many times in the past and I will continue to be wrong about things in the future. What I refuse to do is close my mind to the possibility I might learn one new thing tomorrow that I did not know today. I am comfortable learning something that completely changes my mind. I call that a paradigm shift and that’s a good thing.
I am prepared to move along the Pro-Life/Pro-Abortion continuum as I learn more about this issue. I’ve stated my position above and gave my reasoning for it. I don’t recall if you’ve made an equivalent statement, if you have please tell me the time of your post.