Abortion

I am pro life and I am also pro choice. I am personally against abortion, war, and the death penalty. But I think choosing suicide is perfectly legitimate. I understand that these views, for whatever reason, don't seem to fit together for other people. Ted Cruz considers himself a champion of life because he is against abortion, but advocates that we "carpet bomb" the people of Syria. The prevailing notion on the political Left seems to be that life is sacred in almost every scenario. People and animals alike are to be treated humanely and protected by the mighty State. The only glaring exception is the case of inconvenient human fetuses. Much like the apologists for collateral damage, they believe that there must be sacrifices. The sacrificial lambs would surely thank us if they were aware of what we were sparing them.

As far as I'm concerned, there is only one legitimate argument for not finding abortion morally repugnant, and that is if you simply do not believe that a fetus is a person yet. Really, that is the entire "pro life/pro choice" argument. It's an insoluble philosophical debate. For as simple and unassailable as that argument appears though, I rarely hear anyone on the Left invoke it. Instead, they prefer to continually beat on the worn out strawmen of Choice and Women's Health. No pro-lifer that I've ever met has had any issues with women choosing their own shoes, their own homes, or their own careers. They just don't think women have a special right to choose to kill their own offspring, no matter the age. This is a very particular choice. The argument, once again, is whether or not the anthropomorphic piece of flesh with a beating heart is a person who has a right not to be killed.

Of course, nothing is cut and dry. The health of the pregnant woman is (obviously) intertwined with that of the fetus. There are times when a pregnancy is a threat to the mother. This is an entirely different matter. The decision to terminate such a pregnancy should not be held in contempt by those who have never been in such a dilemma. Choosing the mother's life is still choosing life.

Personally, I am not sure when a human being develops as a person with rights. All I know is that it must be sometime after conception. And since I cannot identify a theory of personhood that I find satisfactory, I feel it is best to err on the side of life. But then I think of how any law banning abortions might be enforced. I have no interest in the State pestering women about whether or not their life was really in danger during pregnancy. I hate the idea of doctors on trial trying to defend their medical reasoning to some son-of-a-bitch prosecutor. Imagine a woman who actually wanted a baby only to lose it and then end up in a battle with her government over whether or not she should be imprisoned. No, this won't do.

As per usual, the blunt force of the State is an unsatisfactory tool for addressing a societal ill. There is really only one person who can ultimately protect an unborn child's life from being extinguished by "choice", and that's the mother. Women should be persuaded that they should chose life long before they ever become pregnant. Pro-lifers should refrain from calling these women "whores" or "murderers". They are not murderers if it is not a person. And when bombastic lefties try to say you're anti choice, gently steer them back to the real point of contention. Does an abortion kill a person? Then you can debate them on what makes a person a person, which is far more interesting. And if you come to a conclusion on that, be sure to share it with me. I'd love to know.

Well, there's my take on the abortion debate. For my evidence of war being mass murder, check here. And here is where you can find my defense of choosing suicide. I've never written about my opposition to the death penalty. Perhaps another time.