PRO-WHAT?
When Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun penned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion in the United States, he admitted:
“If this suggestion of [fetal] personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] amendment”.
For all pro-life approaches, there is a basic truth that is necessary and essential: There is a separate life with a valuable existence. This is fundamental to any productive conversation. Period. This is what it comes down to.
Let’s explore some statements and questions
from a ProLife stance
Least amount of abortions > illegalization of abortion
Rather than talking about legality (which is necessary if pro-life claims are correct), Let’s talk about the “should” instead of the “could”. Instead of talking about if women can get abortions (because women will get abortions whether it be by public healthcare or private doctors. Whether it is illegal or legal) My intention, as a pro-life advocate, is to lessen the desire for abortion and open our society's eyes to the choices that are far more favorable. Don’t be deceived, your choice is not between abortion or parenthood, freedom or servitude, opportunity or regret. Anyone who tells you that is either misinformed or nefarious. There is a garden of choices and the pro-life community can & should lead those conversations in their homes, communities, schools, and workplaces. Even though I consider the act of abortion to be immoral enough that no state seeking the wellbeing of their constituents should adopt it--my goal is the least amount of abortions not the illegalization of abortion.
For the sake of a moral argument we can explore comparative markers that already exist in our society because nowadays a simple right or wrong doesn’t really exist. The most parallel examples I have found are suicide and childcare:
Society has implemented laws, regulations, and programs to deter the following because they are considered immoral and/or detrimental:
Suicide: this involves action upon one’s own body as the subject sees fit even to death. Many consider suicide prevention not only deserving of time, attention, money, and education but consider anyone in support of suicide (those who make it acceptable, accessible, or celebrated) not an advocate of rights but a danger to society.
Child Neglect: A child doesn't have a right to a mother’s breast milk. They don't have a right to a parent's home, money, or care but if a child is neglected or misused by the restraint of these essentials there are consequences and reactions in order to protect the life of the child.
Although legislation isn’t the first priority it is central in dictating what is right and wrong in a society and enacts positive and negative reinforcement of that decision.
Dependency = inhumanity?
Because a fetus is dependent on a mother to survive doesn't mean that it is not a human with rights. If we hold this position consistently ( life which is dependent on another is subject to another’s relative analysis of whether they should exist or not) that means eldery and disabled members of society who are dependent on others for survival are subject to their decisions about their death as well. Some might mention those in comatose and say that there are people who authorize the ending of their life, to which I would say there are two key differences. 1. There is an assumed reality that these comatose people will never be able to live beyond the assistance of a ventilator which may not really be “living” 2. The comatose person was, at one time, coherent enough to decide that if something should happen they entrust someone to make decisions. In the case of a fetus not only does it have a full life of opportunity ahead but they have not had the opportunity to assert whom they would like to decide if they live or die= no consent.
Where are ProLife advocates when those babies grow up to become ill-equipped adults?
Now we are entering into community and society as a whole. How do we support children, young adults and people who lack a strong familial foundation or favorable conditions? A holistic approach to valuing life is essential and, while it exists, it can always be made better. Consistency offers great accountability. However, just because someone doesn't implement their views fully and without mistake, doesn't mean their statement or stance should be discounted. Many environmentally conscious individuals drive cars and produce trash and add to the destruction of the environment, no matter how small that addition may be. That doesn't mean we need to discount the fact that our environment requires protection.
Isn't this just a bunch of religious people trying to enforce their views on others?
First, we need to broach the topic by saying there are numerous pro-life advocates that don't have a specific affiliation to religion or political party--There are some interesting polls from Pew Research center: https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
There is, however, an essential belief that a being has a spirit or that life begins with a fertilized egg or the presence of a heartbeat but that isn't so much religion as it is science.
This isn’t a fight for people to agree with their beliefs, it is a defense against a life that they argue is being violated, you don’t need religion for that defense because it can be completely substantiated by science and comparative morality, You don't need to be a “believer” to validate the pro-life argument. Second, There is the reality that a majority of religious communities (generally speaking)are Pro-Life.However, they don’t simply see the act of abortion as bad or punishable, they would simply not have an abortion and remain “fine”. Judeo/Christian communities (specifically) see divine intervention, redemption, sustenance, peace, and joy through the worst of circumstances because of the God they worship. It's only consistent that these people think the hope of any situation or circumstance can extend outside their own perspective. It isn't just prohibiting “bad” it is enabling something good, precious, and blessed. If you don't have hope in spite of circumstance it makes perfect sense that you would want to take matters into your own hands with an unwanted pregnancy-- in fear, but that isn't enough to disprove the presence of life or excuse an infringement upon another being.
Matt 19:26 “Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Isaiah 49:15-16 “Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are continually before me.”
Psalm 139: 13-16 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
Abortion starts with SEX
The sexual revolution said it doesn’t matter how you engage in sex because uninhibited sex equals empowerment. When women were increasely pregnant because that is part of the design of sex> for procreation, they started to lose that empowerment. Children are life-changing, future-altering beings that take sacrifice and selflessness to raise. So suddenly this empowering experience was causing possibly the most humbling and difficult process. Instead of questioning our sexual practices and educating ourselves on avoiding pregnancy in the first place, society said it is your right to have sex in whatever fashion and frequency you choose so we will create a pill that deters pregnancy so that you can engage in said “empowering” sex without the unwanted result of pregancy. But of course an intervention such as birth control is not fool-proof, wreaks havoc on a woman's hormonal makeup, and let's face it, some people just can't be bothered. Another measure was instituted out of a desire to control eugentics, population, and power that was 100% effective in stopping birth-- abortion. Marketed as a solution to let people not only do whatever they want whenever they want, but erase any implications or reactions those actions produce.
Talk to the women who started Cosmo Magazine. The sexual revolution and feminist movement were diametrically opposed at the start. But sex was soon seperated from love, seperated from babies, separated from commitment and the female sex was seperated from the male sex. All in the name of freedom. Freedom is often correlated with detachment, but what happens when you detach something from its design? It is no longer free to do what it was designed to do and becomes a vehicle for confusion, dissatisfaction and disorder because we are still going to that thing to fulfill a need that it is no longer able to provide.
Why aren’t abortions displayed and described fully and unapologetically?
Abortion offers to erase a perceived problem, why wouldn't everyone choose that? Abortion education (displaying and describing an abortion procedure) reveals that it isn’t a simple erase. It is an action inflicted upon another being. In the prochoice world, anything that humanizes a fetus is avoided: words, videos, the image of an extracted fetus and anything that attributes life to the object of an abortion. In order to properly choose we must be fully informed on WHAT we are choosing.
Why have Pro Life advocates use destructive measures like violence, anger, or shame?
Most people who have spent any real time advocating against abortion do not consider any of the aforementioned measures to be useful in deterring abortion. Since that is the goal, anyone whose true goal is the support of unborn life and mothers/parents would not resort to those measures. Connection, education, resources, compassion, help-- these all provide more tangible alternatives while prioritizing the mental, emotional, relational, and physical health of all involved. That being said, can there be anger against rhetoric that undermines the value of innocent, unborn life? Sure. So long as that anger does not result in perpetuating the violent harm they claim to fight against. Like anything there are unproductive actions on either side— It isn’t representative of the whole on either side.
Shouldn't you just leave it up to the woman, don't you trust women to make decisions for themselves?
Life is all about the weighing of options. There is close to nothing that is absolutely black and white, good or bad, right or wrong. Very few decisions, especially involving people, are EASY. We filter each choice through our lenses of experience, knowledge, values, and ultimately gains/losses. One person can be fully justified for a choice while another could make that same choice and feel overwhelmed with guilt or regret. Whether someone feels guilt should not be the barometer if something is truly reprehensible, just as feelings of empowerment should not dictate what is praiseworthy. What is the reality of the situation at hand, what are the beliefs and factors that lead to one’s justification or contrition. We must properly weigh factors both inside one's perspective and OUTSIDE one's perspective. In the discussion of pregnancy there are decisions that a woman has authority to make, when that infringes upon the objective reality of a being's right to live that shouldn't be equal to what prenatal vitamin she decides on. It's interesting that people are saddened when a woman decides to shoot heroine while pregnant but its ok if they get a Dilation & Evacuation procedure.
Should Men really be involved in the conversation about abortion?
Were men involved in the process of making the object in question--a fetus. Were men once fetuses? Are men part of our society where we engage in civil discourse?Some pro-choice advocates say that if you dont have a uterus you shouldn't have a say. Well, men passed Roe V. Wade. other pro-choice advocates say men aren’t saying enough; that it takes two to make a baby and they should take responsibility.So from these two competing perspectives it seems that ProChoice advocates want the support of men, but otherwise, they don't have a say even if a fetus requires half female and male DNA.
You want to be “equal” to a man? Be able to live your life without impending fear of pregnancy? Get a hysterectomy. No one is prohibiting that. But you want the CHOICE to have or not have a baby at any point in your life? Well, that's a privilege, it is a privilege to conceive. just ask the thousands of women who are infertile. With privilege DOES come responsibility (spiderman WAS pro life?!?!) So if you want a privilege without it’s responsibility or an action without a reaction you can wish hard but you can't ask society to provide that as a “Right”. Women often say that they should be able to walk away from a pregnancy like a man can. Men walk away and, although long term effects are detrimental on a child, the life of the baby is preserved. A woman isn't walking away from a baby (that can be done through adoption) they are ending the existence of the baby. A man is making a choice, however misled or hurtful, that involves removing himself while abortion doesn’t remove one’s self... it removes the baby, which is not the same.
Telling a woman she can’t have a hysterectomy is very different from telling her she can’t have an abortion. They are both preventing birthing a baby, they are both considered “family planning”, they are both medical procedures, they are both chosen by the woman whose body will undergo the procedure. The only difference? The presence of another's life. That is the distinction made that separates an abortion from a women’s health decision.
You can't tell women what to do with their bodies.
Sure we can. As a society we determine what is beneficial for our country, society and selves. Otherwise why would anyone ever have any sort of law, regulation, or social agreement? In order to survive as an entity or civilization we must agree on fundamental values and at the very least work to compromise. That being said, the belief that there is another body involved plays a HUGE role in this debate.As society we determine what circumstances justify killing, we say if someone is breaking into your home, has proven ill will, and detrimental actions then you have license to protect yourself and your livelihood and injure or kill them. If you want to bring a gun to a preschool and injure or kill them that is not socially or legally acceptable. You are telling the person what they can and can't do with their body in order to maintain a peaceful thriving society as best as you can. Are school shootings or violent behaviors going to happen? Yes, but as a society you choose not to accept and celebrate those actions and make the opportunity to do so less accessible and as difficult as humanly possible. Bottom line each human has every choice available to them but society/country/communities can support and encourage or deter and find alternatives.
You can't take away someone’s ability to end the life of a fetus. You can end a pregnancy on your own, through private doctors, etc. People have that choice whether it is legal or not, the option is always there. What a society can do is say we will not make this action accessible, acceptable or celebrated because we believe it to be detrimental to the quality of life, the elemental right to life, and our societies’ overall value of life--no matter the circumstance or projected future.
The Paradox
In this example We have two women who are 12 weeks pregnant. (12 week-old fetus = 10 fingers, 10 toes, about the size of a lime)
The first woman has a misacarraige and mourns. She invites you to grieve with her. The second woman undergo’s an abortion and she is relieved, she invites you to celebrate with her. What is the difference if nothing about the lost object (aka baby) has changed? It is the way the mother sees that object and the value she ascribes. The first grieves the loss of a future with the laughter, joy and life this baby would bring and the second rejoices in a reestablished future she has without the pain, poverty and suffering her baby would bring. Both women are projecting their ideas and identity onto another human, the baby. The substance of the baby lies within the trajectory of the mothers ideas, not within inherent value or present reality.
So how can we change the way we see babies and how our communities support families, orphans, single moms and foster kids? There should always be hopeful options. We should never see death as the best option and that is what we are fighting for. That is what we fight for when we promote suicide awarness and prevention---its their own body and its everyone’s individual choice to kill themselves, but still we fight because life is VALUABLE in many forms, under many conditions, and with all sort of futures. You don't know what suicidal people face, you haven't walked in their shoes, but still you try and help and educate. You want to be a part of a society that values LIFE over anything else. That is why it is called pro-life because we are calling for individuals and societies to value life above any of the crap life throws because life is inherently WORTH IT. The future of a person (in the form of a fetus) is dependent on the perception, strength, and imagination of a woman so why don't we take time to build HER up and fill her imagination with all the beautiful possibilities of bringing a baby to term?
It's just a harmless clump of cells with a heart tone
Getting an abortion actually confirms that a fetus is a whole lotta something. Otherwise you wouldn't do anything to it. You would let it play out its nothingness and go about your life. You realize and acknowledge it is an entity, a separateness imposing its life and will and needs upon yours. If it was a part of your body there wouldn't be any action needed.
I would imagine that every pro choice person is completely and totally indebted to their mother. After all their very existence is contingent upon their mother’s rationale. Do they say “you should have taken the option to end my life in the womb”? “I wish you thought twice about seeing me through, I wish you weighed the options of how much I would cost, all the fights that would ensue, all the fractured relationships that would come because of me, all the tears, all the struggle. not to mention the environmental impact. I wish you would have thought twice”. I don’t imagine the pro choice community is saying that, because the focus is on having the choice not on the reality of that choice and what that means for people other than the choice-maker.
But what about Rape, do you expect someone to carry their perpetrator’s child?
Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute. If we got to the place where these are the only abortions that are acceptable that would be a huge advancement. That being said, If this is the only circumstance that someone can justify, Do they believe it is a necessary option for assault victims but not everyone? If there is an action that is ok in some cases but not in others you must stay consistent with the conditions that dictate its justification. In other words, abortion for rape victims is saying that killing a fetus is OK if a greater harm is done. 1. You are belittling or ignoring the death of an innocent being as the greatest harm and 2. For many people, bringing a baby to term or putting them up for adoption or raising them is considered the greater harm. So where is the line drawn?
Human Life deserves preservation/protection despite conditions: If a baby is a product of rape or abuse that doesn’t mean that it isn’t fully human or loses its right to live. Take yourself, what undesirable conditions are you a product of? External conditions should not dictate internal value or determine a subject's potential. No one is claiming that it is easy or that someone should raise that child, but to let it live.
Isn't lessening abortion an attack on women’s rights?
When I hear that women deserve the right to choose I hear the right to be exempt from reactions. You have a right to eat cake everyday, you don't have a right to erase any result that may bring-- illness, weight, unhappiness. If you want to call it a choice that's fine but no one is entitled to a removal of unwanted repercussions as a right. As a human who interacts in the natural world you must accept that actions have reactions. When technology or invention allows you to “erase” those reactions there are usually other reactions happening. There is no such thing as an isolated action. Personal responsibility is a big theme in this conversation.
A mother CAN leave her child a mother CAN abuse her child a mother CAN injure her child that doesn't mean it should be acceptable, accessible or celebrated.
When you devalue and fracture the most reliable relationship in the world-- that of a Mother and Child you are fracturing human sustenance and wellbeing, not to mention JOY.
Engaging in productive debates is crucial to our society, we must regain the art of civil discourse.
“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference.”
-Elie Wiesel-
This instead of That
Instead of repeating a claim that we’ve all heard, try a question:
ProCHOICE
You are disrespecting women
ASK: What rights do you think women have/ should have in regard to procreation?
2. If you don't like abortion, don't have one
Ask: Why do you believe that this issue needs to be public instead of private?
ProLIFE
You are killing a baby
Ask: When do you believe life begins?
2. Even if you don't want your baby, someone does.
Ask: What are the options you believe you have? What is your biggest fear in this pregnancy?
Feminists against abortion
Sarah Norton 1870: “Child murderers practice their profession without let or hindrance, and open infant butcheries unquestioned.... Perhaps there will come a day when...an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood...and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with”.
In the radical feminist newspaper The Revolution, the founder, Susan B. Anthony, and the co-editor, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, refused to publish advertisements for “Foeticides and Infanticides.” Stanton, who in 1848 organized the first women’s convention in Seneca Falls, N.Y., classified abortion as a form of “infanticide” and, referring to the “murder of children, either before or after birth,” said, “We believe the cause of all these abuses lies in the degradation of women.”
Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for president (in 1872), concurred. In her own newspaper, Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly, Woodhull wrote: “The rights of children, then, as individuals, begin while they yet remain the foetus.” Woodhull and her sister, Tennessee Claflin, declared, “Pregnancy is not a disease, but a beautiful office of nature.”
Susan B Anthony’s Newspaper:
Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!
Alice Paul was asked by a friend what she thought of linking abortion to women’s rights. The author of the original Equal Rights Amendment called abortion “the ultimate exploitation of women.”
VIDEOS AND LINKS
Prager U: Is abortion right or Wrong
Allie Beth Stuckey Podcast: Relatable
https://www.liveaction.org/what-we-do/investigations/medical-misinformation/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRdpvfDMqm4
Become a Big for a Foster Care child
National Foster Care & Adoption Directory
