Why “Reducing the Number of Abortions” not Necessarily Prolife

[shannyk]

from moral accountability.com

Why “Reducing the Number of Abortions” not Necessarily Prolife
ShareThis Print This Article Print This Article

Francis J. Beckwith, Baylor University

President Barack Obama is unequivocal in his support of “abortion rights.” He has opposed laws forbidding the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion, and even voted against Illinois’ born alive infant protection act, which protects babies who are born alive after surviving an attempted abortion. Despite Obama’s record, some prolife Catholics and Evangelicals supported the president’s candidacy on the grounds that his policies would reduce the number of abortions. Although my moralaccountability.com colleague Professor Michael New has provided convincing refutations of the empirical claim (see, for example, this one) made by Obama’s self-identified pro-life supporters, I want to respond to what I believe is the philosophical mistake that lurks behind their argument.

I and other pro-life activists have worked tirelessly over the years to reduce the number of abortions, but a numerical reduction is not our only goal. The prolife position is that all members of the human community, including the unborn, have inestimable and equal worth and dignity and thus are entitled to the fundamental protection of the laws. “Reducing the number of abortions” could occur in a regime of law in which this principle of justice is denied, and that is the regime that President Obama wants to preserve and extend. It is a regime in which the continued existence of the unborn is always at the absolute discretion of others who happen to possess the power to decide to kill them or let them live. Reducing the number of these discretionary acts of killing simply by trying to pacify and/or accommodate the needs of those who want to procure or encourage abortions only reinforces the idea that the unborn are subhuman creatures whose value depends exclusively on someone else’s wanting them or deciding that they are worthy of being permitted to live. So, in theory at least, there could be fewer abortions while the culture drifts further away from the prolife perspective and the law becomes increasingly unjust.

Consider this illustration. Imagine if someone told you in 19th century America that he was not interested in giving slaves full citizenship, but merely reducing the number of people brought to this country to be slaves. But suppose another person told you that he too wanted to reduce the number of slaves, but proposed to do it by granting them the full citizenship to which they are entitled as a matter of natural justice. Which of the two is really “against slavery” in a full-orbed principled sense? The first wants to reduce the number of slaves, but only while retaining a regime of law that treats an entire class of human beings as subhuman property. The second believes that the juridical infrastructure should reflect the moral truth about enslaved people, namely, that they are in fact human beings made in the image of their Maker who by being held in bondage are denied their fundamental rights.

Just as calling for the reduction of the slave population is not the same as believing that slaves are full members of the moral community and are entitled to protection by the state, calling for a reduction in the number of abortions is not the same as calling for the state to reflect in its laws and policies the true inclusiveness of the human family, that it consists of all those who share the same nature regardless of size, level of development, environment or dependency.

Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University, where he is also Fellow and Faculty Associate in the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion. He is currently serving on the faculty of the University of Notre Dame as the Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow in Notre Dame’s Center for Ethics & Culture. A graduate of Fordham University (Ph.D. and M.A. in philosophy), he also holds the Master of Juridical Studies (M.J.S.) degree from the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. Prof. Beckwith offers an extensive argument for the prolife position in his recent book, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice.

Thoughts?

 

[mapleoak]

A newly elected president’s first course of action upon entering the white house should have been an executive order to stop human slaughter. This followed by a process of working out that technical legal definitions which ultimately should lead to total respect for the innocent by the laws of the land.
Suppose you were to have a child who was kidnapped by a serial killer. Would that he had an excuse for setting him free thereby reducing the number of his victims, regardless of whether or not he thought your child to be a human being created in the image and likeness of God, would you be upset that he was set free for the wrong reason? Or would you be relieved that he was set free period.

 

[dbaseII]

from moral accountability.com
Thoughts?

Depends how drastically you reduce the number of abortions.

Dr Reardon and others have suggested that the population is composed of three types as far as abortion:

1. pro life… totally against abortion - all abortion
2. pro choice … basically against abortion but feels that abortion can be an appropriate choice for a woman at times
3. pro abortion - i.e. a part of the abortion industry - most of these - or financed by the abortion industry as are Pres Obama etc

Most of the population falls into the first two groups with only a small number in the third group. Obviously “converting” the third group is pretty impossible. But folks like Dr David Reardon suggest that we could sit down with the second group, the “pro choice” folks and TEACH them the realities of abortion and that abortion is NEVER a good choice for a woman due to the physical and psychological dangers for the woman i.e. the fallout even if you forget about the death of the baby. And most of them could come to our way of thinking. Which would put us way in the majority. Most pro choice folks DO NOT KNOW about the link between abortion and breast cancer, most of them do NOT know that there is a 25 percent chance of a serious repercussion after surgical abortion like perforation of the uterus, bleeding out, DEATH, or lifetime sterility.

You will never see a pro lifer quite as ardent and emotional as someone who has had a personal experience with abortion and has felt the damage first hand. One example of this is the Silent no More awareness campaign (aborted women who regret it) which has hundreds joining on a daily basis. Another example is the 72 year old fiddler who plays in a large ice cream place and prominently displays his pro life signs where ever he plays. And another is the co founder of NARAL who owned 5 abortion clinics in NYC which did over 60,000 abortions and now has converted to pro life AND Catholicism i.e. Dr Bernard Nathenson.

This goes to show what even the Guttmacher Institute found in a study done some years ago i.e. “the more women know about abortion, the more they are against it”.

Here again, pro lifers would do a lot just to get activist and educate the general public which of course, is NOT fun because people do not convert graciously but are liable to hit you over the head at least verbally for suggesting the truth. That should not stop us who follow Jesus who said “Unless you take up your cross daily and follow Me you are not worthy of me”.

Having “informed consent laws” which REALLY inform about the breast cancer link etc and having parental consent laws which they SHOULD have since it IS surgery and every other surgery requires a parent’s consent, would DRASTICALLY cut down abortions… we are not just talking a few hundred or thousand a year… we are talking cutting it down as much as 95 percent.

As evidenced by those who have aborted, few of them KNEW what they were getting into and many say had they known, they would have made another decision.

We had an unplanned pregnancy in our family - my 16 yo granddaughter. She was pro choice until she and I had an intense converation (at the Thanksgiving family gathering… how inappropriate, I remember thinking as this did not endear me to most of the family but this is when the Spirit led me to say something because SHE expressed that she was pro choice).

But less than 5 months later, she found she WAS pregnant and she DID NOT have an abortion. Here is the baby. Put a face on abortion folks because this baby is one whom society says should have been aborted because she came at “the wrong time” to a young unmarried High schooler. My speaking out, regardless of being inappropriate and annoying some in the family might have saved this baby’s life. That’s HUGE… her teen mom is crazy about her and has found that babies are available for hugs when no one else is… 95 percent of humans born make a positive contribution to the world.



http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/xqnVULbKvS9nwcIQBVH-gg?feat=directlink

 

[Feanor]

In the case of trisomy 18 I can see abortion being used. These babies have no brain or even half a head. Very, very few of them live past one week and none live one year. Most live a few minutes up to one hour. All are brain dead. Keeping them alive for a week costs hundreds of thousands or approaching one million dollars.

This occures in appox. 1:100,000 births.

I am sorry if you guys disagree but I feel I am still Pro-Life.

 

[Feanor]

In the case of trisomy 18 I can see abortion being used. These babies have no brain or even half a head. Very, very few of them live past one week and none live one year. Most live a few minutes up to one hour. All are brain dead. Keeping them alive for a week costs hundreds of thousands or approaching one million dollars.

This occures in appox. 1:100,000 births.

I am sorry if you guys disagree but I feel I am still Pro-Life.

Sorry I looked this up on Wikipedia and the occurrence is approx. 1:6000 live births. The median life expectancy is 15 days.

 

[Corki]

In the case of trisomy 18 I can see abortion being used. These babies have no brain or even half a head. Very, very few of them live past one week and none live one year. Most live a few minutes up to one hour. All are brain dead. Keeping them alive for a week costs hundreds of thousands or approaching one million dollars.

This occures in appox. 1:100,000 births.

I am sorry if you guys disagree but I feel I am still Pro-Life.

That is not a pro-life position. Just like the pro-slavery crowd, you are judging which lives are worthy of being protected.

You are squarely in category #2 of the dbasell’s list above.

 

[Feanor]

That is not a pro-life position. Just like the pro-slavery crowd, you are judging which lives are worthy of being protected.

You are squarely in category #2 of the dbasell’s list above.

OK well that is your opinion. These are not issues that can be argued however.

God Bless

 

[OriginalJS]

The Doctor beats around the bush. I understand him to say that reducing the number of abortions is not enough; what the government should do is ban all abortions. While he doesn’t use these words, his meaning is clear. This is the standard pro-life position.

 

[mapleoak]

The Doctor beats around the bush. I understand him to say that reducing the number of abortions is not enough; what the government should do is ban all abortions. While he doesn’t use these words, his meaning is clear. This is the standard pro-life position.

In fact, the government has an obligation to ban all abortions. As long as it is legal for people kill other people who inconvenience them, they will continue to do so.

 

[shannyk]

OK well that is your opinion. These are not issues that can be argued however.

God Bless

they can’t? why is that?

there are two ladies I know of on these boards who have had trisomy 18 babies and I know they would both disagree with your assertion re:abortion here. And the nerve of you to site money as an issue. Have you considered how much money it has cost to keep YOU alive?

 

[Feanor]

Hi Shannyk,

I have looked at your posts and you seem entirely reasonable though I don’t agree with everything.

Thus I will respond to your inquiry as you do not seem to be like the many extremists on this forum, especially those who mary Political Far right with their Catholic Faith.

I did not post the above to be argumentative but I can see how it would appear that way when reading it again. I was attempting to provide some context to my position to those unfamiliar with this illness.

In EXTREMELY rare situations I can see the option of abortion. Such as the extremely rare if virtually non-existant issue of a mother who will invariably die if this is not done- and if the baby was to be born likely it would also die.

For Trisomy 18 the utterly devastating nature of this condition for me- I can see abortion as an option available.

I believe that the issue of abortion can be viewed as an ethical issue even outside of religion and some of my rare exceptions are based on my belief that our laws, though informed by Christianity, should not be defined by them. Personally, my beliefs are based on my faith as a Catholic but I do not expect or desire the US government’s policies to be entirely based on a parallel of understanding of Catholic Doctrine.

I am not looking for abortion on a massive scale by any means- in fact I want the opposite.

I hope this is more clear and I pray that you will not use this to attack me- in reading your posts, however, I do not expect this.

I am not pro-death or any other term which some may think when reading this post.

I will not respond to what I preceive as an attack.

Bod Bless.

 

[shannyk]

Hi Shannyk,

I have looked at your posts and you seem entirely reasonable though I don’t agree with everything.

Thus I will respond to your inquiry as you do not seem to be like the many extremists on this forum, especially those who mary Political Far right with their Catholic Faith.

I did not post the above to be argumentative but I can see how it would appear that way when reading it again. I was attempting to provide some context to my position to those unfamiliar with this illness.

In EXTREMELY rare situations I can see the option of abortion. Such as the extremely rare if virtually non-existant issue of a mother who will invariably die if this is not done- and if the baby was to be born likely it would also die.

For Trisomy 18 the utterly devastating nature of this condition for me- I can see abortion as an option available.

I believe that the issue of abortion can be viewed as an ethical issue even outside of religion and some of my rare exceptions are based on my belief that our laws, though informed by Christianity, should not be defined by them. Personally, my beliefs are based on my faith as a Catholic but I do not expect or desire the US government’s policies to be entirely based on a parallel of understanding of Catholic Doctrine.

I am not looking for abortion on a massive scale by any means- in fact I want the opposite.

I hope this is more clear and I pray that you will not use this to attack me- in reading your posts, however, I do not expect this.

I am not pro-death or any other term which some may think when reading this post.

I will not respond to what I preceive as an attack.

Bod Bless.

I don’t object to you saying you feel it’s an extreme case where extreme measures may be exhorted, (thought I disagree and certainly the Church does) but that you say

Keeping them alive for a week costs hundreds of thousands or approaching one million dollars.

That argument is just nothing more than thinly veiled elitism in my opinion.

Can you tell me which of my posts offend you? Please, PM me, maybe I can clarify.