Editor’s note: The author of this piece has chosen the term “pro-life” to describe the political position opposed to abortion. Standard newspaper practice is to use the term “anti-abortion,” as it more exactly describes the political stance. The Emerald has decided to let the author choose the terms of his argument.
ith both the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and National Sanctity of Human Life Day having been celebrated recently, there is renewed talk on the topic of abortion. Unfortunately, this usually consists of pro-choicers calling pro-lifers “extremists” or other names meant to evoke emotional reactions. Such were the words of Daniel Peabody in his guest commentary (“Question irony in government decisions,” ODE, 2/1).
To begin with, Peabody called pro-lifers “a small but vocal group of domestic terrorists.” For the record, a 1999 Gallup poll showed that 42 percent of those polled identified themselves as pro-life, while 48 percent identified themselves as pro-choice and the remaining 10 percent were undecided. Pro-lifers might be vocal, but we’re hardly a small fraction of the population.
Calling 42 percent of the population “extremists” and “domestic terrorists” is not only disrespectful to the true victims of recent terrorist acts; it is also inaccurate. The people who threaten or harass abortion doctors and clinics with violent actions do not represent the majority of pro-lifers, and Peabody knows it.
Pro-abortionists have hidden behind the word “choice” so as to seem as though they are on higher moral ground. But let’s name that choice; the choice is to end innocent human lives. To tell a pro-lifer, “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one” is to miss the point entirely. It’s akin to saying, “if you don’t like slavery, don’t own slaves.” Nobody should have the choice to own slaves, because slavery is wrong for everybody. Similarly, pro-lifers oppose abortion because the choice to end innocent human lives is wrong for everybody.
The pro-life position rests on a few simple facts. It’s a matter of basic biology that the fetuses in danger of being aborted are alive and human. There’s no need for personal opinions, religious beliefs or talk of the soul. It’s obvious that these fetuses are both innocent and defenseless. It should be clear from these two facts that abortion ends innocent and defenseless human lives. Any pro-choice response that seeks to logically persuade pro-lifers must take account of those facts.
Liberals are usually proud of their inclusion and recognition of marginalized groups within the human community. But when it comes to the unborn, many liberals take a surprising turn and decide that some human lives should be ended right after they have begun simply because they are small, hidden in the womb, are an economic burden or unwanted. Many adults have been labeled as unwanted or economic burdens; should we end their lives, too?
As a pro-lifer, I believe that abortion is justifiable when it is needed to save a woman’s life; which was entirely legal even before Roe v. Wade. Many pro-lifers would add other difficult situations such as rape, incest or severe fetal deformation as justifying abortion. Yet these cases constitute around only three percent of the roughly 40 million lives that have been ended in the name of choice. Abortion seeks to treat the symptoms of social problems at the expense of human life, instead of dealing with the problems directly. As a society, I think we can do better.