Why I'm Pro-Life
As a Bible-believing Christian, it’s natural for me to hold certain views. Sometimes those belief conflict with my generally Libertarian-leaning view of public policy. For example, I don’t think Christians should recreationally smoke marijuana. However, I question the right of the government to ban it. Also, it’s clear to me that homosexuality is a sin and is clearly against scripture. On the flip side, I am not so sure that the government should define what essentially comes down to private legal documents (which is basically what marriage is to any government).
Thus, on the surface, my thoughts on abortion may appear to go down that same road. However, when it comes to politics of abortion, I take a detour.
The Libertarian message is actually rather congruent with the pro-life movement. We are told that in the United States we are free to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The word life is right there.
So what is life?
Life begins at conception. Any other chosen point is completely arbitrary. Is it the heartbeat? What is it about one organ that makes the child a life or not? Doctors can provide pacemakers and perform xenotransplantations to give new hearts. So why does it matter that this child’s heart hasn’t pumped its first beat yet?
Is it when the child can survive on its own? We have many among us who cannot function without assistance. Are they not lives just because they might not be able to walk on their own power, or be able to feed themselves, or able to work to provide for themselves? We use (mostly rightly so) government funds to support those who are physically or mentally unable to take care of themselves. But what about the voices we don’t hear? What about the eyes we can’t look into? Or the tears we can’t dry?
Because we don’t see, we don’t care. Therefore, all logic is null and void. Life begins at conception. Once the sperm and the ovum has joined, there is nothing those group of cells will create other than a human being. That is the first stage of life. One we all go through, and as much of a stage as infancy, adolescence, and the golden years.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s where the debate ends. You either believe it’s a life at conception or you don’t. I can handle those who choose to use illogical means to play God and decide when life begins. What I can’t handle are those who say, “Well, I believe it’s a life, but I can’t tell someone else what to do with her body.” This stance is the most spineless position there is. How is your conscious clean when you believe it’s a life, but are okay with others destroying that life?
If you believe the child is alive, and you take a pro-choice stance, by definition, you condone murder. That sentence will create enormous backlash, but there is no point to argue against it. If you believe something is a life and you take a stance that allows the destruction of that innocent life, you are supporting its murder. Sadly, people have become disillusioned with the term pro-choice, and it creates a warm atmosphere of “freedom” for the individual to make a decision. What about the child’s freedom? Again, believing it to be a life, why is its freedom as a human being of any less worth than the mother’s?
To make themselves feel good, the areas of rape, incest, and mother’s health have attempted to create loopholes in morality. In the case of rape and incest, I cannot begin to imagine the trauma and the pain taking a child through birth would cause or perpetuate. But it’s a life. The mother didn’t choose to engage in a practice to produce the child. Neither did the child. But he or she is there. He or she has been created. It’s no less a life due to the circumstances of its creation. Which is why, for me, the only reason to terminate the child is when the mother’s life might end in the process. Unlike the other stances, this isn’t a Life v. Death scenario, with the only ethical choice being life, but a Life v. Life dilemma where there is no right answer.
Roe v. Wade is a judicial decision that legalizes a horrific genocide. Of course, that term shocks and angers people, but again, logically, it’s correct. Genocide is “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group” (dictionary.com). Abortion is absolutely deliberate and, since ending a life is murder, it’s certainly an extermination. Obviously it’s not a national, racial, or political group, but let’s look at the definitions of culture: “the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.” Culture can refer to an age group. Abortion is directed to those who are unborn, which is an age group. Therefore, genocide is completely an accurate term for abortion. Of course, logic isn’t liberal-minded people’s expertise.
I’ve tried avoiding pro-life cliches in this post. Not that I don’t think they’re true, but they’ve become worn-out rhetoric that have lost meaning and impact. Deciding that the child is a life at any other point than conception is throwing darts in the dark: you really have no idea what you’re doing. But if that’s the conclusion you’ve come to, there’s not much else to say. However, if you feel something inside of you that says, “This is wrong, and I would never make that choice” but validate the legality of abortion by saying others can engage in it, I hope and pray that you wake to the absurdity of that stance. The child is just as dead no matter who terminates him or her.
Thus, on the surface, my thoughts on abortion may appear to go down that same road. However, when it comes to politics of abortion, I take a detour.
The Libertarian message is actually rather congruent with the pro-life movement. We are told that in the United States we are free to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The word life is right there.
So what is life?
Life begins at conception. Any other chosen point is completely arbitrary. Is it the heartbeat? What is it about one organ that makes the child a life or not? Doctors can provide pacemakers and perform xenotransplantations to give new hearts. So why does it matter that this child’s heart hasn’t pumped its first beat yet?
Is it when the child can survive on its own? We have many among us who cannot function without assistance. Are they not lives just because they might not be able to walk on their own power, or be able to feed themselves, or able to work to provide for themselves? We use (mostly rightly so) government funds to support those who are physically or mentally unable to take care of themselves. But what about the voices we don’t hear? What about the eyes we can’t look into? Or the tears we can’t dry?
Because we don’t see, we don’t care. Therefore, all logic is null and void. Life begins at conception. Once the sperm and the ovum has joined, there is nothing those group of cells will create other than a human being. That is the first stage of life. One we all go through, and as much of a stage as infancy, adolescence, and the golden years.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s where the debate ends. You either believe it’s a life at conception or you don’t. I can handle those who choose to use illogical means to play God and decide when life begins. What I can’t handle are those who say, “Well, I believe it’s a life, but I can’t tell someone else what to do with her body.” This stance is the most spineless position there is. How is your conscious clean when you believe it’s a life, but are okay with others destroying that life?
If you believe the child is alive, and you take a pro-choice stance, by definition, you condone murder. That sentence will create enormous backlash, but there is no point to argue against it. If you believe something is a life and you take a stance that allows the destruction of that innocent life, you are supporting its murder. Sadly, people have become disillusioned with the term pro-choice, and it creates a warm atmosphere of “freedom” for the individual to make a decision. What about the child’s freedom? Again, believing it to be a life, why is its freedom as a human being of any less worth than the mother’s?
To make themselves feel good, the areas of rape, incest, and mother’s health have attempted to create loopholes in morality. In the case of rape and incest, I cannot begin to imagine the trauma and the pain taking a child through birth would cause or perpetuate. But it’s a life. The mother didn’t choose to engage in a practice to produce the child. Neither did the child. But he or she is there. He or she has been created. It’s no less a life due to the circumstances of its creation. Which is why, for me, the only reason to terminate the child is when the mother’s life might end in the process. Unlike the other stances, this isn’t a Life v. Death scenario, with the only ethical choice being life, but a Life v. Life dilemma where there is no right answer.
Roe v. Wade is a judicial decision that legalizes a horrific genocide. Of course, that term shocks and angers people, but again, logically, it’s correct. Genocide is “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group” (dictionary.com). Abortion is absolutely deliberate and, since ending a life is murder, it’s certainly an extermination. Obviously it’s not a national, racial, or political group, but let’s look at the definitions of culture: “the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.” Culture can refer to an age group. Abortion is directed to those who are unborn, which is an age group. Therefore, genocide is completely an accurate term for abortion. Of course, logic isn’t liberal-minded people’s expertise.
I’ve tried avoiding pro-life cliches in this post. Not that I don’t think they’re true, but they’ve become worn-out rhetoric that have lost meaning and impact. Deciding that the child is a life at any other point than conception is throwing darts in the dark: you really have no idea what you’re doing. But if that’s the conclusion you’ve come to, there’s not much else to say. However, if you feel something inside of you that says, “This is wrong, and I would never make that choice” but validate the legality of abortion by saying others can engage in it, I hope and pray that you wake to the absurdity of that stance. The child is just as dead no matter who terminates him or her.
Comments
Post a Comment