Opposing Conservative and Liberal Views: Abortion

Conservative View (CON): With a working conservative majority on the Supreme Court, Roe vs. Wade could be challenged and overturned, putting to an end the murder of unborn children. On the other hand, two more liberal or “progressive” justices on the Court makes for a liberal majority, which makes it unlikely that Roe vs. Wade might be overturned. To America’s shame, the murder of unborn children will continue.

Liberal View (LIB): Regarding overturning Roe vs. Wade, I don’t believe you really want to go there.

CON: What is wrong with ending the legalized murder of thousands of unborn children by overturning Roe vs. Wade?

LIB: Reversing Roe vs. Wade will not end abortion. Your opposition to abortion is based on your religious belief, but you have no right to impose your belief on others. A female has the right to choose whether to bring a pregnancy to term or not. Civilization has evolved beyond draconian laws that would force a woman to see a pregnancy to term. If the fetus is unborn, it is not a child. Aborting a fetus is not murder.

CON: I believe that life begins at conception. To say that a fetus is not a life until it is ejected from the womb totally ignores the development that takes place during the gestation period. I am wrong when I said that reversing Roe vs. Wade would end abortion. If that were to happen, each state would have to enact legislation to settle the question in each of the states. There is a good chance that some states would legalize abortion. In that case, we could at least take some comfort, since representatives elected by the voters rather than judges will address the issue.

While we need to settle these issues as a people, what is beginning to bother me is the increasing militancy of secularists who are attempting to impose their beliefs on Christians.

Granted, females have the ability (I hesitate to call it a right) to terminate a pregnancy, but let’s not say it is right just because it is legal. There are some who still consider it a sin. So, if the pendulum swings our way and the law required pregnant females to go to term, that would be far from draconian. Instead, it shows compassion for the unborn.

LIB: You say that you believe life begins at conception. Before conception, the sperm and ovum are both living matter. Therefore, implicit in your belief that life begins at conception is your belief that a deity adds a soul to the cellular matter at the instant of conception, creating a developing human equal in all respects to every person ever born. You are entitled to your religious beliefs, but you are not entitled to have your religious beliefs made into laws that would be imposed on persons who do not share those beliefs.

Birth, not conception, is the prelude to being human. Some conceptions never result in a birth, because the fertilized egg does not attach to the womb and some attached fertilized eggs detach from the womb without any human intervention. Development of a fetus may fail causing a miscarriage. Some fetuses are still-born. Is compassion felt for these examples of the unborn or are these natural occurrences that don’t warrant compassion? Of course, grief can be felt for the promise of the unborn, for its birth and growth, but the grief is not for the individual who was never known as a person.

I consider birth as the distinguishing characteristic of being a living person. I’ll grant that a developing human is alive, but I don’t consider that condition to have any value, except for its potential for birth. If a fetus is a “life”, i.e. a person as you use the term, what kind of “life” does it enjoy: awareness, sensation, memory, emotion? To my knowledge, none of these traits are exhibited in an unborn human.

My compassion for another human being depends on the degree to which that person is known to me. I do not consider a developing human to be an identifiable person. If I become aware of an abortion, a miscarriage, or a still-born birth, I feel no sadness or grief for the unborn creature. I do feel compassion for the mother and family who have experienced a loss in a terminated pregnancy. A law that requires a pregnant female to “go to term” is extremely harsh or cruel, i.e., draconian. The law is not a vehicle for compassion for the unborn.

Consider that in humankind individual members of the species are born and die, but the species lives on, evolving for eternity or until extinction. In the continuation of a species, a death is placed in perspective as an unavoidable, even an essential event, not as an object for grief. Our compassion for the death of an individual varies, depending on our emotional attachment to them. A death in the family evokes the greatest grief and less grief is felt for deaths of other persons. For some deaths, no emotion is felt. I choose to reserve my compassion for those who have lived among us regardless of the duration of their life, but not for the unborn.

Some reasons for an abortion are repugnant. It is improper for abortion to be used for birth control. There are more responsible ways to avoid pregnancy. A late term abortion should never happen, except for the mother’s health or to end a pregnancy with a defective fetus. A pregnant woman’s decision to abort is responsible only when made early in the pregnancy. Delaying a decision to abort until the fetus is viable should be resolved in by a birth, after which adoption is an option. The decision to abort or not is the province of the pregnant female, influenced as she may be by spouse, family or community. Sanctions are the province of spouse, family or community, not the government. There are remedies to deal with short of passing laws requiring a woman to continue a pregnancy to term.

Within the context of abortion, the alleged increasing militancy of secularists who are attempting to impose their beliefs on Christians, the so-called persecution complex, is mentioned. It will be discussed when secularism is the topic.