The labels placed on the opposing sides of major cultural/political controversies are often not only misleading but exactly opposite to the truth. The label of pacifism given to those who reward aggression with appeasement, thereby inviting mounting violence against the innocent, is one example. The only rational way to truly promote peace is to advocate immediate and overwhelming force against the perpetrators of force.
The labels given to those on opposite sides of the abortion issue are another example. The protests directed at the administration of Notre Dame University for inviting President Barrack Obama to speak at their commencement ceremony—and for giving him an honorary law degree—are based on a moral premise that is fundamentally anti-life.
Obama was exactly right when he said that “the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory.” The opponents of abortion describe themselves as “pro-life,” yet totally ignore the life of the woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy.
When that situation occurs, regardless of whether the woman used a prophylactic method or not, there are two lives involved, not just that of an embryo. To ignore one of those lives is to suggest that the woman’s interests are no longer of any significance. Her life, her happiness, her needs, her future are no longer of any consequence. All that matters is the life of the "unborn." The significance of the existence of “potential human life” per se is elevated to moral supremacy, and everything else is diminished. That life, even if it is barely distinguishable from the life of the lowest animal, must be preserved at all costs.
Apply that same standard to other situations where two human lives are in conflict—where the preservation of one life may require the abrogation of another’s rights. An example would be a life-threatening medical problem where a sibling’s life depends on a bone marrow or organ transplant from a brother or sister. And to make the comparison more accurate, let us suppose that the surgery represents a serious danger to the survival of the brother or sister, threatening his/her future life and happiness. Would the advocates of the so-called “pro-life” position seriously suggest that the brother or sister has no right to say no? Or would they see that, by describing their position as “pro-life,” they are totally ignoring one of the two lives?
In the case of abortion, of course, we are talking about an enormous impact on the woman’s life that goes far beyond the biological act of delivery. Her entire future will be impacted in a major way, regardless of any heart-wrenching option of giving up the baby for adoption.
And, more importantly, we are also talking about an undeveloped embryo as opposed to a fully independent human being. No genuinely “human” being can claim any rights that require the abrogation of another’s rights. Yet abortion opponents want to grant such rights to a zygote or embryo. That is why the issue must be understood in terms of individual rights, not some arbitrary definition of “when life begins.”
The only genuinely “pro-life” position in the abortion debate is that of favoring a woman’s inalienable right to choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment