Log In | Register
On the way to writing a more in depth article on the Abortion controversy, I ended up getting side-tracked with this one. It seems to me that both sides accept the premise that the life of a baby is "sacred" and worthy of legal protection and thus it is the question of when the entity becomes a baby that is at the heart of the debate. This may not seem to be such a novel idea, but perhaps it is worthy of further examination. For one thing, all killing is not murder, and thus this area of agreement is actually significant in that it suggests both sides are operating from the same premise, ie. at the point the fetus becomes a "person" it is protected.
Before we go any further, I'd like to take a look at the above mentioned premise, just to show that it is not simply a "given" and that there is actually an alternative "foundational premise" which might meet the test of being "moral" and yet not protect the fetus. In essence, that alternative involves "choice".
In an attempt to illustrate what I mean by choice, I offer the following example. A man is trapped on a sinking ship and as the waters begin to rise he is faced with a horrible dilemma. It represents such a parental nightmare that I even hesitate to use it for fear I may be punished in some unforeseen way by what some call karma.
In any event, the dilemma is that he can only stay afloat if he saves himself and one, not both, of his children. He cannot sacrifice himself, or all will die. He cannot attempt to save both children or all will die. The one child is sacrificed so the other may live, and, though he is willing to sacrifice himself, as the necessary agent through which at least one of the children will survive, he must be one of the ones to live. I would assume that few among us would be anything other than sympathetic to a parent who was forced to make such a choice, and thus he would probably be considered one of the victims, certainly not a murderer.
The above example illustrates that alternative arguments do exist which could be used by pro-choice advocates to support a pro-choice position, even while acknowledging the "person hood" of the fetus at the time of the abortion. Without arguing over the specifics of my example, the point is that the pro-choice movement has not attempted to make that argument other than in those cases when the mother's life might be at risk should the pregnancy go full term.
In essence, the question is not whether the baby deserves legal protection, but rather at what point the fetus magically turns into a "baby". This may not seem to be a particularly new or valuable insight, but I would suggest that it is by focusing on the answer to just this question that a more acceptable outcome from the perspective of those in the Pro-life camp might be given legal sanction.
The point is that both sides have already agreed that a baby is justifiably given not only the same rights as any other American Citizen, but, in fact, extra rights, in that the parent is required to make every effort to provide the necessary and proper conditions to ensure the baby's survival, and that to do otherwise can, and should, result in charges of negligence, or even murder, depending on the circumstances. It obviously follows that even those who are pro-choice, if they are to have any consistency at all, must be forcefully involved in advocating the funding and staffing of a valid research project which answers the question on a scientific, not religious, basis. For them to do otherwise would be to expose them to charges that their actions are in opposition to their stated position that the rights which are afforded to a baby are no less than any other citizen.
