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, wasn’t it you that said taxation was akin to thievery? If I’m mistaken I apologize, but I’m pretty sure I’ve heard you say so before. If you didn’t say it, someone very much like you said it. Olly, your “assurances” are not convincing or reassuring. Now I have a family function to attend. Mostly a very good discussion today.
Interesting thing about that list of non-profits. The big ones who have the most clients all have boards, staff, directors, office space, lawyers, accountants, automobiles. The small ones still need oversight and thus have overhead, too. Lots of money spent before the first client is served.
Check around. How many successful projects have to fold for lack of funds? And that is before they suddenly have to take on ALL of America’s needy. And how many charities are willing to sign up for a long-term commitment? They can’t fold for summer vacation or because there is a recession and their funding has dried up. In fact, when the country is in a recession they have to have ever GREATER funds because more and more people have been made vulnerable.
You’re in la-la land.
Now Annie thinks she knows what I believe about taxation. I’m not surprised; she also has the ability to predict the future, assuming what our nation will look like given less government and more private enterprises caring for the less fortunate. I can assure you Annie that the facts are not in your favor. History proves the conservative point valid and the liberal point pure fiction. There is nothing wrong with idealism as long as it is founded on sound principles.
Olly – Inga like to write what she would like you to think and then she refutes. It is a little game she plays. You will tire of it.
@ Mike
Large government agencies that try to solve things on a “national’ are inefficient, top heavy with administrative personnel and the majority of money that goes to those agencies does not actually go to the bottom line or the purpose. The same can be said of some of the larger secular charities as well. Red Cross being one that the lion’s share of contributions never get to the intended persons to be helped.
In addition. Trying to have a national solution for regional problems is not going to work. For instance the needs of poor, indigent families are different in different areas and more importantly the solutions for those problems are not going to be the same. Helping the indigent poor in Appalachia versus Miami or Chicago or Los Angeles. The need is not the same in all areas of the country and you cannot be efficient with a centralized, top down, one size fits all solution.
Local charities and local non profits have a better finger on the pulse of the problem and are better able to quickly respond to the issues AND most importantly are not normally top heavy with administrative personnel who siphon off most of the funds.
Local and regional organizations are also more likely to have people who will volunteer and work towards the goals.
One of the worst things that has happened is to disconnect local people from feeling that they can be responsible and that they can make a difference. If all you do is send $19.99 a month without even having to write a check to the save the whatever organization….then people tend to think….”Well…I did my part.”… and then they do nothing more. People tend to say. I paid my taxes….now it is someone else’s responsibility.
When people give over their personal responsibility to take care of their fellow citizens to the government, the tend to suppose that the problem is being handled by someone else. And usually it is not being handled. The money is being wasted and the problems exist. When you give over to the government more power than it is entitled to you lose your freedoms.
We didn’t have endless wars back then either. How many hundreds of thousands veterans are now disabled?
Yes, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be acceptable Olly, but AGAIN, let’s face reality. It won’t happen. Things were different when we had industry and people had jobs. The social safety net wasn’t so burdened back then.
Yes indeed Mike, people like Olly and others who think taxation is thievery should consider the human suffering that would ensue without our federal and state funded social safety nets. Secular and Church charities are not nearly capable of dealing with all the Americans who need help. We do not want our streets to resemble the mean streets of Calcutta.
Annie,
If a comprehensive plan was put into place where government was phased out and private organizations filled the need, would that be acceptable? At one time, social safety nets WERE private institutions and we were not running the massive deficits we have today. So why would we not at least TRY what has worked that did not add to the national debt instead of throwing more tax dollars at programs blowing up the national debt AND creating MORE dependency? The latter is clearly not working so why not at least attempt what has worked?
Annie
It’s more than babies and moms, though. It’s disabled vets, disabled workers, the old, those suffering from chronic disabling disease, the mentally ill, those who lost their homes and businesses through natural disasters and oil spills, widowed mothers, the homeless.
Max,
If a nation has a right to self-defense and you don’t believe a country has a right to make war; how then do you see self-defense acceptably conducted? For instance, do you see military deployments going away? Would we be able to project our defense globally or would we have to wait for it to be done on American soil? Would our rules of engagement be limited to a response to an act of aggression? What do you call it when we are properly defending our nation against an enemy actively trying harm our nation if it’s not called war?
Supporting hundreds of thousands of babies and their moms would quickly overwhel, private or church charities. Let’s get real here.
Here you go Mike and everyone else who thinks that the government must take money from taxpayers to provide charity. Lots and lots of private and non religious charities.
http://www.guidestar.org/NonprofitDirectory.aspx
If you all are so passionate about helping and subsidizing join one of these…….or……start your own non profit. It isn’t rocket science.
Dusty,
Yes there are other non-profits. And they never have enough money to carry out their present mission which don’t even BEGIN to meet anything like a national need.
To think that American social needs can be met by secular charities is insane, unrealistic thinking.
Social needs are best me by governments.
God is the author of Life.
God is the same Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.
God is the one who gave us Unalienable Rights which means man cannot take those rights away.
On the other hand Inalienable Rights are given by the government and can be taken away by the government.
The USA is a Constitutional Republic based upon our Unalienable Rights.
In a Democracy there are six wolves and three sheep making the sheep a meal.
In a Constitutional Republic there are six wolves and three sheep and the sheep still have the right to live.
Babies from conception have the same Unalienable Rights as those reading this.
Since the USA is a Constitutional Republic you have a Right to disagree with me in a peaceful manner.
Olly
“Mac, do you believe a nation has a right to go to war?”
= = =
Self defense…
But that’s not America has been doing. Bombing hospitals, torture, fomenting the spread of terrorism, and droning wedding parties and farm workers.
No, I do not believe a country has the right to make war. I am pro-life and by that I mean I value the living over politics.
If a fetus cannot survive outside the womb, it technically isn’t fully formed.
If an adult is living, why support violent means that take that life? And then dare call yourself, “pro-life”?
Keep creating and instigating decisive issues so the elites can maintain their tyranny and power.
Max, BTW, Sarah Palin became the President in that book “A Christian Nation”, after McCain dies. The premise is he won the election. We can thank goodness we dodged that bullet.
Max, if we were to become the Christian Nation, depicted in the dystopian book “A Christian Nation”, I’d say yes indeed women who had abortions would be guilty of 1st degree murder, in the Christian Nation’s eyes.
Annie, it’s OK that you can’t see how our two paragraphs intertwine. Somebody reading will think critically about it, somewhere.
Annie
Would an intentional abortion be considered a capital offense by these “pro-lifers”?
I see a mothers execution…
Max-1 – a premeditated abortion would be considered premeditated murder. The penalty would depend on the state