The Pro-Life Movement's Problem With Morality

The Washington Dispatch ^ | June 6, 2003 | Cathryn Crawford

[Consort]

Whatever their views would be, if any.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Do you have any ideas what they might be?

[tpaine]

[sarcasm & shameless plagiarism]


I confronted a pro-life fundamentalist friend w/ just this logic, and you might be surprised to hear that he has taken the step -
- (which I had never heard anyone express but which I had always posited as the inescapable fulfillment of arbitrarily picking a date that "humanness" begins) -
- of advocating the sequestering of all women, immediatly after sex.

His position that life beings at fertilization, and that the state must protect all human life from that instant on makes perfect sense.

Thus, once it is established that the egg is fertilised, the mother must be under state control to insure that the baby is protected.

Then, when there is a child born, if the parents do not want the child, and nobody else is willing to care for the child, then the parents should have to pay the state for the child's proper upbringing. Such are the wages of fornication.


I've always said this was the inescapable conclusion of abortion logic, but I've never heard anyone actually advocate it. Yeah statist fundamentalism

[sarcasm]

[Consort]

No. But like I said, I think something is missing. Maybe not.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Then, when there is a child born, if the parents do not want the child, and nobody else is willing to care for the child, then the parents should have to pay the state for the child's proper upbringing. Such are the wages of fornication.

By all means, let's raise a generation of screwed up kids. That's what happens when the government gets involved. Believe me. I speak from experience.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Okay - that seemed like a meaningless exchange!

What do you think about the premise of the piece?

[tpaine]

Sounds like a real 'plan' to me..

Gotta love the concept of morning after sex cops..

[Cathryn Crawford]

morning-after sex cops.

The government's trying.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Well, that was a noble effort, but your version isn't analogous to mine. For one thing, the government doesn't protect assign bodyguards for individuals outside the womb to protect them from every chance of injury (which is what your piece is suggesting the government do for individuals who are inside the womb).

Abortion is the pre-meditated murder of an individual within the womb. The government, through its powers, protects individuals from murderers, and so this should extend to individuals within the womb. Therefore, as it is illegal to murder an individual OUTSIDE the womb, it should be the same INSIDE the womb as well, because of the inalienable rights guaranteed to us via the Constitution, from our Creator. (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)

When you arbitrarily choose a date where "personhood" begins to exist, it simply becomes a matter of pushing it back and back. Say it's 3 months. Well, why not 3 months and 1 day. Say it's within the womb. Well, what about when it's halfway out of the womb. All the way out of the womb. Up until the child's 18th birthday?

Obviously, infanticide is just another "arbirtary" date chosen for conferring personhood on an individual who becomes a person at conception.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Ultimately the argument boils down to the definition of when a human being becomes a human being. Two choices: conception, or an arbitrary date during the birth cycle. The latter obviously logically ultimately reduces to infanticide.

Citing the health risks of abortion isn't all that persuasive: abortion increases risk of breast cancer? Well, let's study ways of performing abortions w/ a corresponding medication that will control the hormonal changes that increase the risk. Abortion increases chance of infertility? Well, let's study ways to improve the abortion procedure so that women's bodies can be unharmed. Citing health risks can be met w/ the counter-argument of, basically, "Let's build a better mouse trap."

[Proud2BAmerican]

that what we are talking about is an actual human life - distinct and seperate from it's life-support system.

If depending on life support means a person isn't a person anymore, then we can do whatever we want w/ the elderly and infirm. Not to mention newborns that can't take care of themselves.

[tpaine]

Yes, obviously.

[Consort]

Yes, the "holier than thou" morality approach seems to have worked against the pro-lifers, making enemies of potential allies, But we have to be careful about who we partner with. The religious aspect should be downplayed as is done by the other side and it has worked for them, so far. They politicized the concept of life and the Republicans fell for it and countered it with theology. Something is still missing.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Something is still missing.

I agree. But, what?

[Proud2BAmerican]

Exactly the point I made in my post -- my sister and her husband are one of those couples who desperately wanted to adopt a baby, and fianlly miraculously were able to.

[Consort]

I don't know. The concepts of rightness, conscience, and reason? The absence of shame and stigma?

[Cathryn Crawford]

The absence of shame and stigma? Attached to what, exactly? Pregnancy?

[Consort]

Out of wedlock pregnancies; pregnancy as a welfare ploy; abortion on demand....

[Psalm 73]

If depending on life support means a person isn't a person anymore, then we can do whatever we want w/ the elderly and infirm. Not to mention newborns that can't take care of themselves.

I am quite vocal about being pro-life from conception, so I think perhaps you mis-construed my point, which was in response to this from Miss Crawford:

"But how is stating that going to change the mind of someone who disagrees that a baby is a baby?"

Well, if you're trying to argue from a point of logic only - then lay out all of the scientific evidence (medical, genetic, biological) that proves, from a purely logical point, that what we are talking about is an actual human life - distinct and separate from it's life-support system.
Yes, just like black people in the 1800's and Jews in the 1930's - real human beings.
And this is NOT an emotional argument - it is pure logic, cold hard science.

My point was to lay out the cold, hard, impersonal science aspect that would prove that a baby is, indeed, a baby.
To argue with that is to deny "two-plus-two-equals-four", which is when one throws in the towel because any further argument is only a waste of one's breath.

I, myself, have much more respect for The Word than for "cold, hard science", because one is eternal and the other changes with the seasons. But for someone who thinks the Bible is a fairy tale, the science is irrefutable. Pro-lifers can, and probably should, argue from both world-views.

[patton]

There is a whack-job Professor in NJ that has published exactly that position.