Paradox of pro-life
Dylan May
Issue date: 1/26/09 Section: Opinion
Last Thursday marked the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. The controversial case, ruled in favor of Norma "Jane Roe" McCorvey, superseded all previous state and national laws regarding abortion.
The Supreme Court decided that previously held laws violated a woman's right to privacy and that a mother has the right to a discreet termination of her fetus up until the point of viability (roughly seven months).
Thirty-six years later, however, you will still find protesters lining the streets adjacent to abortion clinics. They are known as "pro-life" supporters, opponents to abortion and advocates of adoption.
Often the pro-life argument against abortion is that it is murder and therefore should be illegal.
Barring a debate on what does and does not qualify as murder, and when exactly life begins, there is an inherent paradox to the ideology of pro-life.
Pro-life generally argues that abortion is murder, specifically feticide. The worst punishment currently employed in court cases for the crime of murder is the death penalty. If pro-life advocates had their way, and abortion was considered murder and therefore illegal, what then should happen to a mother who decides to illegally abort her child? Would a pro-life supporter be willing to exchange the loss of one life for another, measure for measure?
Yet the same group picketing abortion clinics are not holding pro-life signs outside of a maximum-security prison protesting the death penalty, and there lies the hypocrisy. One type of murder is sanctioned, and the other is an abomination.
As the world's population climbs closer to the 7 billion mark, perhaps it is time to put down the picket signs and stop harassing women as they enter clinics.
Through the democratic process it has long been decided that abortion is legal, and it is doubtful that it will be overturned any time soon. Leave the choice of life to the individual, and not to the mob of morality. That decision, regardless of legality, regardless of morality, will always be in the hands of the mother unless otherwise decided in a court of law.
Isn't it better to offer individuals a safe opportunity to terminate their pregnancy rather than forcing them to do it by themselves or seek out the help of the unqualified and potentially put their own life in jeopardy?
The Supreme Court decided that previously held laws violated a woman's right to privacy and that a mother has the right to a discreet termination of her fetus up until the point of viability (roughly seven months).
Thirty-six years later, however, you will still find protesters lining the streets adjacent to abortion clinics. They are known as "pro-life" supporters, opponents to abortion and advocates of adoption.
Often the pro-life argument against abortion is that it is murder and therefore should be illegal.
Barring a debate on what does and does not qualify as murder, and when exactly life begins, there is an inherent paradox to the ideology of pro-life.
Pro-life generally argues that abortion is murder, specifically feticide. The worst punishment currently employed in court cases for the crime of murder is the death penalty. If pro-life advocates had their way, and abortion was considered murder and therefore illegal, what then should happen to a mother who decides to illegally abort her child? Would a pro-life supporter be willing to exchange the loss of one life for another, measure for measure?
Yet the same group picketing abortion clinics are not holding pro-life signs outside of a maximum-security prison protesting the death penalty, and there lies the hypocrisy. One type of murder is sanctioned, and the other is an abomination.
As the world's population climbs closer to the 7 billion mark, perhaps it is time to put down the picket signs and stop harassing women as they enter clinics.
Through the democratic process it has long been decided that abortion is legal, and it is doubtful that it will be overturned any time soon. Leave the choice of life to the individual, and not to the mob of morality. That decision, regardless of legality, regardless of morality, will always be in the hands of the mother unless otherwise decided in a court of law.
Isn't it better to offer individuals a safe opportunity to terminate their pregnancy rather than forcing them to do it by themselves or seek out the help of the unqualified and potentially put their own life in jeopardy?
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 18
M de la Melena
posted 1/25/09 @ 8:46 PM CST
I think women have a right to have an abortion, even though I think it is wrong. However, they don't have a right to use my tax dollars to do it!!!
Tom C
posted 1/26/09 @ 9:19 AM CST
Only a liberal could come up with the idea that it's bad to kill murderers - but it's OK to kill innocent babies, and then blame the conservatives for hypocrisy. (Continued…)
Gustafsen
Pak
posted 1/26/09 @ 3:08 PM CST
"Through the democratic process it has long been decided that abortion is legal."
Abortion was NEVER established through the democratic process but rather by judicial activism in Roe v. (Continued…)
Jeremy
posted 1/26/09 @ 8:26 PM CST
Albeit brief, I wrote an analysis of this subject of incongruities. Hopefully the traveler will publish it wed. or fri. At any rate, it discusses how you can, in a limited spectrum be consistent and believe that you can kill the unborn but not prisoners, kill the unborn and prisoners, kill neither, or not unborn but yes prisoners. (Continued…)
Sally
posted 1/26/09 @ 9:22 PM CST
I had an abortion 21 years ago & it still haunts me to this day. I don't agree with the law, pertaining to the killing of an unborn child, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES. (Continued…)
Gentry
posted 1/27/09 @ 1:22 PM CST
True "pro-life" activists oppose both abortion and the death penalty. It is unlikely they would suggest capital punishment for murderers.
Jeremy
posted 1/28/09 @ 3:43 PM CST
If by pro-life you mean not killing people who kill people to give them more opportunity to kill many more people than we simply killing him and thereby preserving life by allowing more killed, then yes, that is true pro-life. (Continued…)
Greg
posted 1/28/09 @ 10:50 PM CST
Sally, you still would have been able to get an abortion in a world where it was illegal, but it would have been dangerous and you could have died. Had you died, you would never have accepted Jesus into your life, and therefore (by your logic) would have gone to Hell. (Continued…)
Alex
posted 1/29/09 @ 3:16 PM CST
"(in fact, is incapable of qualifying as an individual until 7 months after conception when he/she is capable of surviving [with aid] outside of the womb). (Continued…)
Scott
posted 1/29/09 @ 9:00 PM CST
This is a very unsound argument which leads to a poorly written piece...
Post a Comment