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.
Fear mongering? No, it’s called reality.
Steg, maybe drsigne didn’t “get it” because your comment had no relevance or relationship to mine.
There’s no way in hell I want my country to depend on religious institutions to care for our melting pot of vulnerable people
There are all sorts of other charities and non profit organizations that are secular. Charity does not have to be religious based. You could even start a non profit organization yourself!!! Try it. I did.
It never fails; provide logical and reasonable alternatives to a liberal and all you get back is hyperbole, innuendo, ad hominem and fear-mongering.
How you don’t realize just how weak that is remarkable. Oh well, thank you anyway. Maybe next time.
Annie
Has she managed to ever marry either daddy?
Oops
Mobile auto correct… Damn you(shakes fist at clouds).
Max, Bristol Palin is a product of Abstinence Only Sex Ed. A big FAIL.
Illy
No probs
Mac daddy…
drsigne,
Read how my paragraph there goes with Annie’s above it. It was a play on her words.
To clarify – the decision to engage in sexual activity is best arrived at mutually. I have said nothing about men controlling the actions of women. I was merely rewording Annie’s rhetoric in order to make a point about incentives. I guess you didn’t get it.
Let’s hear from the twice pregnant abstinence princess on the subject…
Bristol Palin Freaks Out About Girls Getting Free Birth Control
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5616f693e4b0e66ad4c73c04
Annie,
If true, why are they overburdened? What role has the government played in it? People are taxed to the point many do not have the disposable income to effectively tithe or donate to charities. They are taught that taxes are there to support the needy and yet by any objective standard, tax dollars are dished out to those without a need. Corporate and individual welfare is not supposed to be for those capable of asking for it; it is supposed to be for those that truly have a need for it. It is not supposed to be support for life but a short term safety net.
A million potential unwanted babies? Why not say 5 million or 250 thousand? Instead of asking what to do with unwanted babies, why are you not concerned with the behaviors leading to the pregnancies?
I’ll trade you; free birth control and sex education for the government defunding of any organization that provides even one abortion. This means if PP wants to continue to be subsidized for health care services they must be able to prove they have no connection to abortion services. If they want to provide pregnancy counseling services they have to provide EQUAL and OBJECTIVE information for all options. Think regulating the mortgage industry and apply that same level of oversight for LIFE.
There’s no way in hell I want my country to depend on religious institutions to care for our melting pot of vulnerable people. What an asinine idea. Hell, religions have been torturing and killing and scorning people since the beginning of time.
A dystopian future…..
I can hear it now, “Oh please Judge, I just had a miscarriage! I swear I didn’t have an abortion!” Would we be willing to do physical exams on women who have miscarried at home in order to rule out abortion? Is there any real way of ascertaining this? Perhaps a physician could speak to this?
Bad Mommy Prison.
Steg, You said, “I wish women were responsible and educated enough to think and reason about their actions.” My, that sounds mighty sexist to me,implying that that is the reason men, who are “responsible, educated, and who think and reason about their actions” HAVE to control women. Puh-leese.
Mike, perhaps my 2:40 post addressed it for you.
Max and Annie
You’ve hit it. If the doctor is a criminal, so is the woman who hires him and consents to the abortion. I wonder if Hilde is prepared for women being thrown in jail?
” I wonder if Hilde is prepared for women being thrown in jail?”
If late term abortions are made illegal then women MAY (or may not) be thrown in jail, fined, sentenced to community service, etc. for willfully having a late term abortion and her doctor too if a jury of their peers determines criminal wrong-doing. I trust in common law courts and jury nullification if need be. As people with two hemispheres of our brains, we are physically capable of logic AND compassion. Only a fully informed jury can determine if a law should or should NOT be applied in a particular case. We are capable of this, are we not? Or anyway we used to be until it was deemed that the right half of our brains is completely unnecessary.
Olly, our churches and philanthropic organizations are already overburdened. What do you think will happen when roughly a million unwanted babies are born each year? You don’t want your taxes going up to care for them?
Sorry, Max not Mac.
Mac, do you believe a nation has a right to go to war?