Pro-Life v Pro-Choice: A Conservative Justification for a Third Option

REPUBLICAN REDEFINED ^ | T Christopher

[T Christopher]

When the issue of Abortion arises, there are essentially two camps – Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. Contemporary politics, or at least common uses of the labels, would lead you to believe the following about the two groups. The first believes in a woman’s right to have dominion over her own body and hence, believes she has the “choice” to determine if she will carry a pregnancy to term. The latter believes that life begins at conception, and that any subsequent taking of that life is the moral and/or legal equivalent to murder. The second camp is the home of the group of individuals that label themselves as “conservatives.” I too consider myself to be a member of this illustrious group and will humbly attempt to discuss our “position” as well as my problems with said position. We believe in principled governance and we expect our elected officials to share in this belief. A noble endeavor no doubt, but it is curious to this conservative how simply pledging allegiance to this Pro-Life camp without further explanation or justification, and ignoring every other piece of evidence that would infer principled governance, gives one the “conservative” credentials that a principled electorate so passionately longs for. Why do we as conservatives time and time again continue to deny admission to our illustrious group any individual who even hints at the idea of opening a dialog with the other camp? Is our goal to find like-minded individuals, or is our goal to save the lives of innocent children? Given that “preservation of life” implies nothing about increasing our “membership,” I would be inclined to assume it was the latter, but that doesn’t always appear to be the case.

My own thoughts and frustrations with this “vetting process” have led me down many roads in search of answers – many of them admittedly taking me to the limits of both liberalism and libertarianism in pursuit of clarity on the matter. I find it hard to believe that one can truly be committed to the goal of protecting innocent life if he cannot allow himself, even for a moment, to attempt to understand the rationale of the other side. After much deliberation and personal reflection regarding the issue, I have come to the conclusion that we simply need more “camps.”

My exploration of the Pro-Choice camp has led me to the belief that while we as “conservatives” need to be mindful of their rationale, it is of little importance to our position on this issue. Their position on Abortion is derivative of an entirely different paradigm as the focus is on the mother’s rights rather than any determination of said rights being afforded to the unborn. I do not dismiss that position on merit or even as a matter of politics, I simply believe that once this examination has been undertaken, it is more important for us to focus on solidifying our own position rather than deliberating over how to discredit the opposing argument. For we too are not without flaws. In fact, I think we have many.

So focusing on the Pro-Life camp, I am led by many of my “conservative” peers to believe that this is a moral choice; it is the religious choice; and accordingly, it is the only choice. As a Christian myself, I appreciate this position but I am deeply confused by the fact that many of my “conservative” brethren forget that Christianity is a personal choice as well. It is not compulsory for this or any American to affiliate with any religious institution or agree with any religious belief – Christian or otherwise. Our 1st Amendment guarantees that we have the Right to practice religion in any manner we see fit – or to not practice at all. As “conservatives” this right forms the justification for nearly every argument that we make in the public forum and the political arena. With that in mind, I am deeply troubled when, on issues such as this, we abandon that 1st Amendment high ground; and rely upon as the foundation of our Abortion position that- this is a moral choice; it is the religious choice; and accordingly it is the only choice – and fail to see how said justification flies counter to the spirit and the letter of the 1st Amendment.

As I stated earlier, I am a Christian and I do believe that one’s faith has a role in the political process. I think it is our Right as Americans to vote for candidates in a manner that reflect our values. That being said, I believe that far too often, those on the political Right confuse the difference between conservatism as a philosophy or ideology with what many consider being “conservative” in one’s daily life. The latter typically implies an emphasis on things like family values or a religious upbringing. While I certainly believe that those things are virtuous, I do not believe that they encapsulate what conservative ideology is truly all about. I see it more as a process toward decision making, or in a political context – a process that leads to policy formulation or choosing positions on issues. The everyday role of “conservatism” is no less important, it is simply individual in nature – as I believe the spirit and the letter of the 1st Amendment intended for it to be.

I believe that this distinction is where many “conservatives” get thrown off course on this or any issue. They read political websites and hear speeches given by candidates that show a laundry list of “issues” that they support, and they say things like “we believe in family values, a strong national defense, the preservation of life, the sanctity of marriage, and the Right to Bear Arms.” Then proudly written somewhere on the page or read loudly in the speech is the word “CONSERVATIVE” and they believe they have finally found their man. Now I would like to believe that these politicians understand that they have just fused the ideology and the principle together in the same message, but I do believe that many “conservatives” no longer understand the difference between the two. It is this problem that I would like to address and will try to do so by using the subject of Abortion.

Read More...

[roamer_1]

[...] this is a moral choice; it is the religious choice; and accordingly it is the only choice – and fail to see how said justification flies counter to the spirit and the letter of the 1st Amendment.

The entirety of your argument is based upon a false premise. The Right to Life is the very first enumerated right - the Declaration of Independence transcends the Constitution in two ways:

First in it's precedence: It was written before the Constitution, so the Constitution must bow to the DOI.

Secondly, in the manner of authority: The rights described in the DOI are natural rights, granted to all by God. It follows that no court of Man has the authority to remove those rights from any man... except in the narrow means provided for (in a limiting fashion) by the Constitution: "Just Cause" or "Due Process".

ANY other reading must necessarily strike at the very root of our foundations, including yours. It is *NOT* a moral choice, but a matter of LAW. Sin, by definition, IS lawlessness.

[Mariner]

There's nothing "conservative" with the belief that abortion falls under the Federal Constitution.

It's CLEARLY a 10th Amendment issue. Roe was a bad decision. Any subsequent decision that does more than simply overturn Roe would also be a bad decision.

Abortion, like all murder, belongs to the states.

Any "conservative" who argues otherwise is not conservative.

[markomalley]

It's CLEARLY a 10th Amendment issue

It's more fundamental than a 10th Amendment issue. It's a 5th Amendment issue: No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Abortion deprives a baby of its life without due process. The fact that the Feds are mandating its legality is, as you say, a 10th Amendment issue, but the fact that it occurs at all is a 5th Amendment issue.