I am pro-choice and I believe life begins at conception. One cannot deny that a unique organism, with its own DNA, is alive at conception. But I still do not find the reason in affording a single cell organism (which could eventually develop into a human being) all the same rights as an infant. Bright lines are certainly easy to follow and understand, but that alone doesn't make it right. I've yet to here a rational argument why a single cell is so qualitatively similar to a developed individual as to justify considering it a person with full constitutional protections. Babies born with just a brain stem and no brain are not kept alive indefinitely, for without a brain, this is really no person there - just a body. Similarly, a single cell has no thoughts, no pain receptors, no organs, no limbs, no brain, no face, nothing but a single cell that has the potential to develop into a full person. There has to be a way we define a "person" beyond DNA and potential, for it an intellectual leap to look a single cell and see a human being in even the most remote qualitative sense.
I use the single cell as the example, because for the position to hold up, it must hold up there. I tend to agree with the US Supreme Court holdings on the issue that see an increasing right to life as the fetus develops. But where to draw the line is exceedingly difficult, and I don't claim to know where to do it. But I also cannot just take the bright line approach just because it is easy and convenient. What I can say is that a single cell, or 16 or 32 for that matter, cannot be considered fully human with full constitutional protections as a grown person, a child, an infant, or even an unborn child in the 8th month of pregnancy. I've read the posts and links, and I still don't see it.
Furthermore, for a true pro-life position to be consistent, wanting abortions to be criminal conduct on par with 1st degree murder, then we'd expect to find several other postions such as:
- opposed in-vitro fertilization proceedures for couples otherwise unable to conceive;
- put pregnant mothers in jail for smoking, drinking alcohol, knowing exposure to asbestos, or engaging in any activity known to put the unborn child at risk;
- guarantee to help support the child of any woman who decides not to have an abortion until that child turns 18;
- oppose any couple trying to conceive if that couple is aware of a high probability of a miscarriage
- oppose aborting the fetus if the mother's life is in danger
- oppose aborting a pregnancy that is the result of a brutal rape
I'm just not seeing pro-life advocates following through with these issues at all, most of which are far less daunting than trying to criminalize abortions.
While I may be pro-choice, and am not pro-abortion. I would certainly prefer there were never another abortion desired or performed. We are all aware of the anecdotal horror stories of late term abortions or those who use abortions as casual birth control. But a vast majority of terminations do not fall into these categories. A vast majory are performed within weeks of conception, not withing weeks of birth. A vast majority of women agonize over their decision of whether to have an abortion, and do not have more than one.
Chipping away at the Constituion or even trying to pass new Constitutional Amendments are not the answer. If pro-lifers are really so committed to their cause, they should work towards a society where abortions are not desired or sought for any reason. Criminalizing it would likely reduce the overall number of abortions to some extent, but would not eliminate it by any stretch, and would certianly put lower income women at severe health risk. (Women with money were always able to get abortions, even before Roe v. Wade.)
This is a complicated issue, where I think reasonable minds can differ. The problem is that it tends to be more emotionally charged than anything. I hope the two sides can look towards their similar goals, rather than the differences someday.
