How can a “good” person—one who cares about children—support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion?
I want to take some of the emotion out of this argument by using an analogy. Let’s say a banana tree represents a human. Let’s say a banana (whether it’s green or yellow) is an embryo (which it actually basically is). And let’s say that a seed that has started to put roots in the ground and sprout represents various stages of fetal development.
If there were a law that prevented cutting down trees (which we will say represents our law against murder), at what point are we in violation? Are we cutting down a tree when we eat a banana—because that banana contains all the genetic information for the tree? Are we cutting down a tree when the seed sprouts roots? When it pokes through the ground? Would, essentially, “weeding” be cutting it down? Do we wait until it has bark or reaches a certain height? I think that there are a lot of possible answers to that question—and good arguments to be made for lots of different stances.
And I think that there are a lot of possible answers to the question of when a human attains that status of “personhood.” I also understand why those arguments invoke a lot more passion and concern than discussing when a tree attains “tree-hood.” But we have to recognize that the situation is complicated and that the point at which “personhood” is granted is a belief. And it’s a belief that I don’t think our country will ever collectively agree on—beyond agreeing that once a child is born, the child should be protected.
And that’s why choice is so important. No one should be able to force their beliefs on anyone—especially on so important a matter. It will always meet passionate resistance. Those who are anti-abortion have to understand that they can be pro-choice and anti-abortion. They are welcome to express and share their beliefs. But they shouldn’t support laws that coerce or humiliate those who believe differently. The certainly shouldn’t support laws that cut access to healthcare based on this belief. It runs counter to their goal to support life. It’s like saying because I love trees so much, if you allow for banana-picking, we will cut off irrigation to all your trees. That’s how the call to defund Planned Parenthood operates. And it’s how Trump’s recent executive order to cut off all federal aid to healthcare facilities that provide abortion in developing countries operates. The policies are cruel and, to a large degree, hypocritical.
From a pro-lifer’s perspective, I understand that they may see the people whose healthcare they are cutting off as a necessary sacrifice to the greater good. They are so certain in their definition of personhood that they are willing to let others die for it—for the sake of all of the “people” they believe they are saving. That’s not brave. And it won’t work. A significant number of people (by many studies, the majority–and by all accounts, a significant number) don’t see it that way. And pro-lifers aren’t changing these people’s minds, they are just taking away options. They are driving abortion back underground. They are oppressing and humiliating people with other beliefs. If anything, their blatant hypocrisy and cruelty is building resistance to their anti-abortion cause. Any “victory” in defunding health services will come at a high price to their overall objective.
Rather than wasting yet another decade trying to force our beliefs about seeds on one another, I propose that we all start focusing our efforts on protecting the forest that we all share.
I have no issues with people who are anti-abortion. That’s their belief, and they are entitled to it. They are entitled to share it and to try to convince others to adopt it. In fact, I will defend their right to do so, even though I disagree. And I would always strongly resist any legislation that would force people who did not want abortions to have abortions. That’s unacceptable.
I do have a problem with people who won’t make room for the beliefs of others; who try to take away healthcare options from others; and who try to humiliate those who believe differently than they do. I have a major problem with the policies that our current President and Vice President support. And I think those who truly value human life and dignity should, too.
1 Comment
You’re wrong when you assert that our country collectively agrees that “once a child is born, the child should be protected.” No less a personage than the Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, Peter Singer, hypothesizes that “newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—’rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness'”—and therefore “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person”. Thus he advocates that no newborn should be considered a person for at least 30 days (and some newborns ought to be immediately killed).
In fact, there a number of Americans who believe they have a right to kill others with whom they disagree. While that view is certainly not the prevailing view, and those who hold it may not be as academically distinguished as Professor Singer, who agrees with them at least concerning newborns, nevertheless, why should we force our opinions on them?
As one writer put it, “And that’s why choice is so important. No one should be able to force their beliefs on anyone—especially on so important a matter.”
And if you feel that you have the right to draw the line at “once a child is born”, Professor Singer patently disagrees with you, and deems your position an affront to the rights of procreators to determine what to do with the product of their procreation.
Again, if you disagree, what gives you the right to enforce your opinion?