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.
Olly,
I think the draft should be restored. And no Bush, Cheney, Clinton type ‘exemptions’ allowed. Everybody must serve in some capacity. That would also result in a terrific social good – universal health care. If every body is a vet – everybody gets healthcare.
But judging by your comment @ 2:23, I don’t see any support for any social programs – a lack that I think is immoral.
Max, that’s coming next.
“But I am concerned about your position on providing ample and generous care for American’s vulnerable children. Such care requires taxes. I don’t think you’re much for taxes and social services. In my opinion, that is immoral.”
I’ve given you no reason to believe we as citizens don’t have a responsibility to others less fortunate than ourselves. Care DOES NOT necessarily require taxes. You have been taught to believe that and this is how the bureaucratic state grows. We are a very philanthropic nation and we prove time and again that we will privately come to the aid of the needy. We need to support private charities because we can be more effective at aiding those that truly need it. When we rely on government to function as a charity we lose all control as citizens. What’s worse is the public charity (government) effectively provides that charity in exchange for votes. ANYONE that denies this to be true is not being intellectually honest.
I can go all day explaining my position. It’s easy to attack because it is firmly fixed in unalienable rights. If someone points out how my position infringes unalienable rights then I will certainly correct myself. We are a nation founded on unalienable rights and our government’s fundamental purpose is to aid in securing them. The question I have for those that want to continue to attack my position is what are your principles based on? Do you have any moral absolutes?
Dear PRO-LIFERS,
Arrest the doctor… What about the mother that arranged the hit job?
Isn’t she as culpable?
Why not cry for her execution?
Max-1 – I do agree with you, both the mother and the doctor or abortionist should be tried and jailed.
The thrust of the argument of this thread being about PRO-LIFE is a rouse…
… The PRO-LIFE groups only care about unborn life, NOT the living.
They are rightfully called ANTI-ABORTIONISTS.
(but admitting you’re anti-anything is a tough pill to swallow with that crowd)
However to call themselves PRO-LIFE is just hypocritical if they also are PRO-WAR.
Max-1 – during WWII most Democrats were pro-War, both Republicans and Democrats were anti-abortion. Did this make the Democrats hypocrites?
Rand Paul the son of Ron Paul was a co sponser to a Personhood bill, giving an embryo the full rights of a person, which would be a backdoor path to outlawing abortions. Maybe Rand didn’t listen to his daddy?
Olly,
US forces kill innocent children in Afghanistan.
The don’t count?
Max-1 – innocents die in war. You are smart enough to know that.
Olly,
So killing innocent children is OK when they die by bomb blast?
Hilde
Ron Paul would choke if you belief that he is pro-choice “politically’ whatever that may mean. Believing that states should make the decision does NOT make you pro-choice. Ron Paul said life begins at conception. He says doctors who perform abortions should be prosecuted.
He is in NO way pro-choice.
“Believing that states should make the decision does NOT make you pro-choice.” Kinda does actually.
I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to understand that a person can be both pro-life and pro-choice. It’s a paradox for sure, and people used to be intelligent enough to walk that line. LIFE itself is a paradox, is it not?
I used to be strictly pro-choice. Now I can no longer label myself as such OR as pro-life but am instead more realistic. “We” haven’t evolved to the point where there are no unwanted children. We haven’t evolved to the point where there is someone ready, willing, and able to care for each and every child conceived and born. We can’t FORCE a visceral sense of responsibility on every pregnant woman, let alone force it on the man who got her pregnant.
I find the more rabid pro-lifers to be just as disgusting and ‘violent’ as the women who basically use abortion as a birth control method and have no compassion whatsoever for even a 6-9 month old “fetus”. I worked with a woman who had seven abortions and thought nothing of it. There are also serious health ramifications to women who abort rather than carry to full term. It’s been awhile since I read on that subject, but this too should be part of an all out effort to discourage abortion. As it is now abortions are encouraged by an industry that makes big profits off it. Women are being used and exploited.
Sorry, goofed…
He womb? Hahaha…
They wish.
Her womb, your Rights?
Max,
My position has and will always be about securing unalienable rights. When people commit crimes that earn them a disablement of the right to life, liberty or property then that right is no longer unalienable. They have chosen a path or are responsible for a path that led to this penalty. I expect it to be carried out.
A nation has a right to be secure and we as citizens have a responsibility to participate, as we are able, to secure our rights. I do not support a foreign policy that imposes our culture on another nation. I don’t support a policy, especially involving war, for resources that we already have available to us by peaceful means. I am for a mandatory term of 2 years in the military for all physically able to serve after they leave high school.
Yes, Olly. You and David have both told us of your philanthropies and I’m sure the children you have taken into your home are better off.
But too often, waaay too often, the foster care system is a horror and winds up as a torture camp or killing field for the children.
But I am concerned about your position on providing ample and generous care for American’s vulnerable children. Such care requires taxes. I don’t think you’re much for taxes and social services. In my opinion, that is immoral.
So many of these pro life arguments don’t seem to be based in reality, but seem instead to be wishful thinking, wanting things to be ideal. Again in a perfect world there would be no unwanted pregnancies, but this is not a perfect world and we aren’t perfect humans.
Anything to reign dominance over a woman…
… He womb, your Rights?
Pro-Life?
Then let’s band together to stop the senseless college campus shootings…
Or, these innocent people don’t deserve to be pro-tected?
“Pro-Life?
Then let’s band together to stop the senseless college campus shootings…” You realize of course that in many cases the only senseless thing about these ‘campus shootings’ is that people believe they actually happened.
Olly, that’s admirable, but the reality is there are not NEARLY enough good foster homes and if a million women are forced to carry and give birth to unwanted children the foster care system will collapse under the undue burden. What will happen to all those children?
Pro-life is certainly the moral high ground but because there are humans who “aren’t there yet” it becomes an act of moral low ground to force babies on the unwilling, fearful, indulgent, negligent, or ‘rational’. There are certainly women who agonize over the decision, choosing to abort after long hard soul searching. Foisting the label “murderer” on them is far from useful or helpful. They may regret their decision later in life and then again they may not.
I like Ron Paul’s stance; pro-life morally, pro-choice politically – the federal govt. should stay out of it. Let the states deal with it.
There’s always a middle ground if only people will accept it. My opinion is that abortion past 3 months should only take place under very strict circumstances. With proper education, there should be ‘no excuse’ for a woman to not know she is pregnant before the end of 3 months and make a decision to abort or not by then. And proper education should be in the realm of the truth and whole truth about what abortion is; sparing no details. Can we agree that we ought to at the very least try to drastically reduce the demand for the services of this for-profit industry?
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/
“Recalling his personal observation of a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his medical residency, Ron Paul stated, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.””
This was a good article and interesting discussion. I find my position here aligns most closely with Olly. I also find KCF’s proposal to be a worthwhile pursuit.
Why not stop any abortion service provider from receiving taxpayer dollars? This is where we see a clash of economic understanding. More left leaning people want the taxpayer to provide free service, while more right leaning people want the people to pay for their own service.
Annie said,
“Olly, let’s live in the real world, shall we? We know that women will be getting pregnant because they are careless. It’s not our right to force them to carry and bear the child. To force women against their will to carry and bear a child is authoritarian and illegal. I wish women were responsible and were on birth control and would not choose to have abortions. But it’s not my right to force a woman to do with her own body what I would choose to do.”
Annie, let’s live in the real world, shall we? We know that women will be getting pregnant because they are careless. It is our right to force taxpayers to pay for her careless behavior so she will not have to live with the responsibility of the consequences of her actions. I wish women were responsible and educated enough to think and reason about their actions, but since they have a free abortion ticket they are not incentivized to do so. But it’s my right to force the productive taxpayer to pay for what I choose to do with my body.
IF people were forced to pay for their own choices, they would have incentive to make better decisions. You don’t have the right to force ‘government’ (whenever this is typed, read TAXPAYERS) to pay for your bad choices.
If you subsidize something, you will get more of it!!! See the war on poverty.
Olly,
Are you fighting for a better system that won’t send your foster children to war where they’ll either kill or be killed?
Pro-Life, and all…
In Colorado, see my 1:26 PM comment, the program of providing free birth control to teens dropped abortions and unwanted pregnancies by 35-40%. That’s a significant number.