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.
Pro-Life?
Then you’re anti-death penalty and anti-war also.
Or just Pro-Life… until afterbirth?
So Mike, I need to show you how compassionate I am about protecting the life of an unborn child or else what, you’ll continue to show your compassion by terminating lives? Using your term “control”; I want to control life and you want to control death. And somehow you find yourself the moral cause? Wow!
By the way, I am a foster parent and I fight for the rights of every child we are privileged to care for. We fight the system and the courts to make sure every child has an advocate. We have a son adopted through the foster system and feel blessed every day. We don’t simply “blather” about the rights of ALL children, we actually recognize all innocent life is to be protected and do something about it.
Renegade
I don’t think anyone, certainly I didn’t, suggested that free birth control would eliminated the need for all abortions. It will significantly and meaningfully reduce the number of abortions.
Renegade, maybe your niece would’ve gotten pregnant even sooner if not for those birth control pills.
So Olly. Which is it?
Free birth control which will reduce abortions by 40/50% (I believe we’ve covered the ‘free’ part) or experiencing large numbers of abortions?
Olly..loved your ad hominem piece.
As to free BC leads to no abortion? Not quite. My once 14 yr old niece had all the pills she needed from the Seattle public schools (unbeknownst to parents). She ran out. Took a chance (based on her faulty assumption), got pregnant by a 19 yr old. Parents forced abortion.
As to the PL vs PC argument, it recently dawned on me that life in general and human life in particular might be the end game of the universe or at least the most unique outcome. (Some may add other life as well, but humans are arguably the most developed.)
So to terminate a developing fetus is to terminate an unfathomably precious event of the universe. We are but star dust in a very inhospitable-to-life universe. Our sun is the third iteration formed from debris of previous stars, and we are composed of elements which only come from exploding stars, not the original “Big Bang” or other concept of the singularity. Our planet is still unduplicated. For our life, we are blessed to be at just the right distance from the sun with a core of iron which generates the field which protect us from radiation and retains the atmosphere against the solar winds.
Whether random happenstance or divinely guided, to me (in this solar system) the epitome of the universes’s development is the human life form.
Renegade – I am very queasy about schools giving out birth control pills. I have had several students react badly to certain pills.
Mike, it’s most definitely hypocritical to hear some concerned pro lifers disparaging mothers with children for accepting public assistance. It does seem that some care more for the unborn than those children already here who have a fully formed nervous system, who feel hunger, pain, fear, etc.
Inga – it is fascinating to hear the rants of those, like Mike, who are pro-death. It is clear that neither you or Mike have worked in the system.
And I’d LOVE to hear the moral argument from any of the anti-choice people here who aren’t screaming for housing for homeless families.
They cannot call themselves my moral superiors while ignoring those homeless children.
We all know, and are sickened by, those who weep for an abortion, but don’t give a fig for the child after it is born. And the ones who are weeping hardest about the sanctity of life are also cool with capital punishment.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
“Pregnancy Resources”. Yes. Those are swell places. That’s where they shame, and hound, and coerce a frightened woman who has no resources.
Tell you what. Show me that you care about unwanted children by fixing the foster care system and ending the abuse and murder of children. Show me that you care about children that are hungry and provide them all with free school breakfast and lunch. Show me that you want to provide neglected children with happy enriched environments for at least part of their day by providing free pre-school. Show me that you care about neglected children by providing housing for all homeless families with children.
Show me that you care about America’s children, Olly. Otherwise you remain in the column “Wants to Control Women”.
Mike – you assume that all women who want abortions are low-income. That is not true.
If a woman chooses to terminate her own internal biological process, that has nothing to do with anyone else, and certainly not you.
Where in Dave complete illustrates Darren’s point on how the twain shall never meet.
You consider conception and birth an internal biological process. Like blowing your nose to get rid of an annoyance. Others who are pro life consider it, the item to be terminated, to be not just a biological process but to be a human being. I am not religious in the sense of belonging to any organized religion at this stage of my life….however those who are religious and pro life also consider the biological process to be more than just that. They also consider the process of bringing forth a human life and a soul a miracle and sacred process.
That’s their view. I just consider it murder, especially when in the majority of cases the pregnancy could easily have been prevented from happening in the first place. Birth control is cheap and easy to get…free even.
You are right in that it isn’t anything to do with anyone else, unless we are paying for the termination. People are free to kill their own children in the name of abortion and we can’t stop them. It is legal.
However, that doesn’t make it right in the eyes of those who have a moral objection to the process for either religious or other reasons.
Those that are pro abortion have a completely different viewpoint on the subject and that is their right.
Darren’s point as illustrated by the comment section is that the people who are anti abortion will never ever be persuaded because they have a certain moral compass. You and others have a different moral compass.
Que sera.
For those who keep saying that a woman is responsible for her pregnancy (i.e. it’s her fault she becomes pregnant – blaming the victim as careless or lazy), I need to remind you that no contraceptive method, except celibacy, is 100%. Once can be very conscientious about contraception and still become pregnant. So let’s not broad-brush all pregnant women who wish to terminate the pregnancy.
BTW, that my last comment was not in response to you Annie.
As predicted; thanks for living up to my 9:46am comment.
Nicely done!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/07/07/colorado-iud-long-term-birth-control-success-teen-pregnancy/29818499/
“DENVER – A much-heralded Colorado effort credited with significantly reducing teen pregnancy and abortion rates is searching for new funding after GOP lawmakers declined to provide taxpayer dollars to keep it going.
Started in 2009 with an anonymous private grant, the state-run Colorado Family Planning Initiative gave free or reduced-price IUDs or implantable birth control to more than 30,000 women.
During the period from 2009 to 2013, births to teen mothers dropped by 40% and abortions dropped 35%, the state says. Armed with a national award for excellence, state health officials asked lawmakers this spring to provide $5 million to keep it going but were rebuffed.
***********************
What an incredibly bad decision not to public ally fund this program.
Olly
Let’s make you have a happy face today. I will adjust my proposal:
If you want to end abortion
HAVE THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDE BIRTH CONTROL AND SEX EDUCATION TO WOMEN WITHOUT ANY MONETARY EXCHANGE UPON THE RECEIPT OF THE BIRTH CONTROL AND SEX EDUCATION.
You know, – just as you don’t have to go build your own highway to get to grandma’s house, or I don’t have to give the fireman my credit card before he turns on the hose.
Having had to make that adjustment in order to make things perfectly clear to you, I think I can put you down on the side of ‘Wants to Control Women”.
Olly:
What are you blathering about. An intangible decision like rape and murder toward *other* people and ending an intensely personal physical process taking place within a woman aren’t the same thing.
A neighbor and a boss are external and distinct from a single person’s own genes, I mean really.
If a woman chooses to terminate her own internal biological process, that has nothing to do with anyone else, and certainly not you.
Government subsidized birth control would stop countless abortions and save millions/ billions of dollars in TANF. Doesn’t it make more sense to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, make it as easy as can possibly be for sexually active women and teens to be on birth control? We can say as vehemently as we wish that these women should take responsibility for their own reproductive organs, but we KNOW that there will always be those who are not responsible, or are raped, or are victims or incest. Let’s try to drop the political ideations and face reality. Women will not stop getting pregnant and having abortions. We can mitigate that with government subsidized birth control.
Thanks, Darren for a thoughtful – and thought-provoking post. Interesting discussion so far. From what I’ve observed among friends and acquaintances across the spectrum is that people aren’t binary, they don’t think in terms of either/or. That’s a political/voting construct and should only come into play when there’s a specific situation or regulation/law being considered, as in for or against this specific law. That doesn’t mean the person supports or opposes a more/less severe/restrictive law.
The extremes at each end of the spectrum tend to dominate the discussion with their incendiary characterizations of anyone not sharing their own end of the spectrum. The fact that some people oppose third-trimester abortions doesn’t automatically mean they’re against birth control or funding for adoption and/or early childcare services. Similarly, the fact that some see abortion as a reasonable outcome where the rights of the woman are pitted against the rights of a fetus doesn’t mean they’re willing to kill a full-term baby as it emerges from the birth canal.
It’s tempting to characterize and demean those who don’t believe in your own righteous cause, but we need to avoid that if we’re to have a civil – and productive – discussion. Neither extreme ever wins all in a democracy, it’s a matter of where on the spectrum there are enough voices to make a decision. The Supreme Court made a huge mistake – not necessarily in their published decision – but in deciding to “settle” the issue and impose their own decision in place of allowing public debate to come to a conclusion.
Annie,
Why are they in dire straights? Dire straights is not simply finding yourself inconvenienced because you are irresponsible. It means you have little to no options. There are pregnancy resource centers all over the country that will provide all sorts of free assistance for these unwanted pregnancies. That eliminates the dire aspect. Why has dire straights morphed into darn, I have a run in my hose and oh yeah, this pregnancy doesn’t fit within my life’s schedule?
Feminists were at the core of the pro-abortion (your word) movement?
How about parents of daughters who had to go coathangers and back alleys at the core of the movement?
How about sexually active women before The Pill were at the core of the movement?
How about sexually active women before The Pill who had four children in six years of marriage and couldn’t afford a larger family at the core of the movement?
How about women whose health would be put in danger by a pregnancy at the core of the movement?
Somebody sure is dumb to lay it at the feet of the ‘feminists’.