I have put off writing on this issue until I had more fully formed my thoughts about it. I think, however, I have thought enough. Also, the time is right for us to address this issue as a political one. We need not address it as one of intrusion into the bedroom, as some put it, though. It's really a matter of deciding who is a person.
In the past, science was of the opinion (in general) that pre-born children underwent a kind of evolution in the womb. Although scientists did not know whether there was a genetic mutation taking place or not, they saw the different forms of the fetus at different stages of development as evolutionary. Medical scientists no longer accept this. Medical science now admits that we are human from the moment of conception, irrespective of our physical form. Since we are living humans, even before we are born, I argue that we are entitled to the same protections under the law.
Nevertheless, some abortion proponents would argue that this is not quite so important as a woman's right to choose. Many would say, and have said, that this issue must remain a private one, between a woman and her doctor. I disagree, and here is why.
If I hated my neighbor enough, I could use the same logic to bring in a hit-man to kill my neighbor. I would not be guilty of murder by this logic, because I have a right to choose. By this logic, this must remain a private choice, between only my hit-man and me. There is no difference between my example (however ridiculous it may sound) and abortion. Some would argue that my neighbor is not at all like a child in the womb. There are two obvious differences that we should cover.
The first obvious difference is that the pre-born are inside a woman's womb. I would argue that a person does not diminish in his humanity if he is sitting in a chair, as opposed to standing on the floor. One's position in space, or relative to another human being, does not attach, in any way, to the question of humanity. If I am in a space capsule in orbit, am I less human than I was when I blasted-off? I think not.
The second obvious difference between the neighbor in my example and the pre-born is one of dependence. The pre-born are entirely dependent on their mothers for nourishment, and protection from the elements. I would argue, however, that one's dependence on another also does not attach, in any way, to the question of humanity. If so, a person on welfare is less human than a person who works for a living. An under-age child in the home is less human, in that case, that its parents. This is hardly a cogent argument.
We next examine the question of pregnancy resulting from rape (incest is, to me, the same thing). If we extend this proposition to its logical conclusion, we can see this argument is false, as well. If 'A' robs 'B', we do not punish 'C'. So, if 'A' rapes 'B', resulting in a pregnancy, 'C', we must not kill 'C'. This pre-born child is not responsible for the rape, and death is not commonly deemed a punishment that fits that crime, anyway. So, abortion is not a suitable option in this case either.
Finally, we must take up the question of the risk to the life of the mother. We have many examples where women, having been informed by their doctors that their life is in danger from their pregnancy, have nevertheless decided to carry their child to birth. In these cases, so many mothers have survived, despite their doctor's warnings, that only a handful have actually died from their pregnancy. Yet, I would point out, we send soldiers into battle, knowing that many will die. We do so, because by sacrificing a few lives, we may save many. I would argue that this issue, abortion, is the same. If a few women die from a difficult pregnancy, despite the best efforts of doctors to save both lives, at least we have saved the lives of millions of pre-born children. We need doctors who want to save lives, not take them merely to satisfy the desires of those who can pay cash.
In the final analysis, we need, not to make abortion illegal, but to elevate the fetus to the status of person. The Constitution of the United States, and our whole body of laws, guarantees the right to life, among other rights, to every person. If we acknowledge that the pre-born are indeed persons, they too will automatically be guaranteed these same rights. I would propose we, the people of the United States of America, adopt this proposition, even if we must amend the Constitution to accomplish it.
