Free Speech, Politics, Society

Ethical Certainties: Why Pro-Life Supporters Cannot Morally Abandon Their Cause

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

Life
Life
Life
Life

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.

503 thoughts on “Ethical Certainties: Why Pro-Life Supporters Cannot Morally Abandon Their Cause”

  1. Oooooo kay then.

    Sorry, I don’t do crazy.

    Although I think I know a way to end some of this crazy sh*t.

    We ought to publish crime scene pictures with the bodies. Hard to argue that. That would include the pictures from Sandy Hook.

    We’d have gun control in a New York minute with a few pictures of seven year olds sliced in half by bullets.

    1. “We ought to publish crime scene pictures with the bodies. Hard to argue that. That would include the pictures from Sandy Hook.”

      Good luck finding those pictures! Remember they kept the bodies in the school ALL night. That makes a lot of sense. No trauma helicopters, people pronounced dead in minutes without a doctor present. OBVIOUSLY photoshopped family pictures. ALL the parents on TV laughing and joking as though they just won the lottery (maybe they did). All forgiveness and light. Heads up. They think you’re STUPID!!!

  2. Max

    Hilde hasn’t answered and it sounds as if you are familiar with what sounded to me like she doesn’t believe the shootings occurred.

    Is that how you interpret her comment and is this a widespread belief?

    1. It’s pretty widespread I’d say. About as widespread as those who believe/know that 911 was a false flag although in that case OBVIOUSLY a few thousand people did die. In the case of the Oregon event there is no proof at all that people died unless you just take verbatim as proof what the govt. controlled media says. I think that’s a little naive at this point. There’s a script that’s followed and if you start to pay attention, you’ll find the same tiresome script over and over and over…. It’s morbidly entertaining if you get into it.

  7. Hilde

    Im not clear about campus shootings and ‘if they ever happened’. Do you mean you don’t think any campus shootings took place in Roseburg or Texas or Arizona in the last ten days?

    1. Yes, I think that pretty much covers it! People KNOW, even if it’s “only” on a subconscious level that these events aren’t real. Otherwise we WOULD see more righteous anger. Poor Obama has taken to throwing hissy fits on national television, threatening executive action, because people are just not ‘getting it’. At least not the way they want. Listen to the narrative. How many times have you heard these words used to describe these unfortunate tragedies; “unbelievable!” “incomprehensible!”, “inconceivable!”, “unreal!” “unthinkable!” Uh….yeah..

  9. Oh – that part about paying for the wars? That also includes all the healthcare that the returning vets will require for as many years as they require it.

  11. Hilde
    “I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to understand that a person can be both pro-life and pro-choice.”
    = = =
    That’s me. 🙂

  13. Olly

    Worried about the debt? Here are some suggestions…

    Don’t have two wars without paying for them. Don’t cut taxes as every Republican candidate swears s/he will do.

    Longer term…
    Don’t have too many babies in one short time frame that grow up and retire in a short time frame.
    Grow your economy by increasing immigration. Immigrants create new businesses and are good consumers.
    BTW, old people are lousy consumers – except for healthcare.

  14. o.s. Olly
    MFR are pressing the case of war crimes… Video to follow when I get home.

  15. Olly
    I thought I was clear.

    America is not fending off real attacks. Period.

    Bombing hospitals and killing innocent children over there is NOT an act if self defense. Period.

  16. Olly

    “Private enterprise?” Now you’re really scaring me.

    Let’s say a private enterprise finds a homeless vet a home. Is that private enterprise to get a fee for finding that home? Will there be some sort of independent oversight to see just how big a fee is taken and how often?

    Uh oh. Congress is going to have to set up a few more investigative committees. And they aren’t free, you know. All those committees cost money. Better get on those phones and starting begging for more money.

  17. Mike,
    A private charity does not have the benefit of spending money they don’t have. The US Government on the other hand, being in debt nearly $19 trillion, would be the most failed of all charities if anyone held them to the same standards.

    La La Land indeed.

  18. The big ones who have the most clients all have boards, staff, directors, office space, lawyers, accountants, automobiles

    Yes. I already made that point. We probably cross posted.

    And that is before they suddenly have to take on ALL of America’s needy

    See. This is your problem in thinking that a charity or non profit needs to take on ALL of America’s needy. They start with the needy in their area that they can help. They don’t try to solve ALL of the problems in the world at once.

    For instance….in the city nearby (about 80 miles away that is the closest city) we have a rather large homeless population due to the nice weather year round. In response to this there are several local non profits who have arisen to provide shelter, food, job training, job sourcing, babysitting, clothing so they can go to work and look for housing. Others provide maintenance and clean up services to prevent fires and unhealthy living conditions for those who refuse to use the shelters.

    Food banks abound for those who are not homeless and not quite destitute enough to get welfare or food stamps provide extra groceries for the working poor. I volunteer at our local bank in our itty bitty rural town. These organizations do not have a lot of overhead. Most of their workers are volunteers. They don’t have to beg the government for a share of tax money or be stalled in legislation.

    There is, of course, a need for some larger national services…FEMA is an example. But if people sit back and wait for the Big Government solution, they may be waiting for a long time. Self reliance and community efforts are always better than expecting some sort of mana from heaven to fall on your head.

  19. Hell, think about the Catholic parishes that are forced to close because of no money. The parishioners LOVE their church but can’t support it. Think of the huge mega church that was forced to close because of a lack of funds.

    Their charity priorities are their own church, and even that priority fails. Volunteerism is a wonderful thing. It is NOT a sustainable, reliable social safety net.

  20. Let’s face the fact that we are discussing the lives of poor and working class women. Wealthy women and their daughters have never, and will never have a problem getting abortions. That has been going on forever, and that’s a fact.

    So how shall we control these poor women? Medical examiner, crime scene investigators and search warrants for any suspected abortion or intentional miscarriage? Incarceration for women who might be suspected of trying to harm a fetus–we could fill a thousand Magdalene laundries with wayward women.

    The punishment for murdering a fetus = death? Or perhaps being forced to carry a Kardashian baby to term so mom doesn’t lose her plastic figure?

Comments are closed.