Friday, August 17, 2012

Abortion: It's About Liberty

If abortion is about infringing on women's rights, as those on the left claim, then why are the majority of the pro-life movement's leaders and activists women?  The pro-choice crowd would have you believe it is because they are religious zealots, intent on regulating the "right" kind of behavior.  But the truth is the abortion issue is not about a woman's right to choose and it's not about the commandments of deity.  The abortion debate boils down to one simple issue, liberty.

It is philosophers like John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Aristotle who found that there were a certain set of natural laws that governed every individual regardless of time, place, or culture.  Chief among these natural laws or rights, according to Locke, were "life, liberty, and property."  These words inspired Thomas Jefferson to enshrine that very belief in the Declaration of Independence.

Liberty is the central tenet in the founding of America.  It's the central theme that runs throughout the country's other founding documents.  The US Constitution is unique in that it does not define the rights of the people it restricts or limits the power of the government to ensure those natural rights are protected.

Pro-choice women say, "my body, my choice," they claim it is their liberty that is at stake, but who speaks for life and liberty of the child growing within them?  What more noble purpose is there than to defend the natural right to life, the one right that is required of all others?

Abortion is not a natural right.  The ability to have one was not something that exists throughout time, place or culture.  Abortions did not exist until scientific reality made them possible.  Scientific advancements are not always good.

Oppenheimer famously said of his technological invention, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."  While abortion is not quite as cataclysmic as the atomic bomb that Oppenheimer developed, abortion is no less devastating to the life growing within the womb.

The pro-choice activist drapes the argument in language designed to minimize the consequences of their actions.  They talk about women's rights and women's health, but when the pro-choice activist speaks of liberty it is a distorted view of liberty.  It is not about natural law, but about their wants and desires; their desire to not be pregnant, to not be inconvenienced, and to not be responsible for caring for and raising a child.

The true choices and liberties the pro-choice activist have occur long before they become pregnant.  The natural liberties they do have are the choice to engage in intercourse and the choice to use contraceptives.  What the should not have is the choice to infringe upon the natural rights of any other.

Pro-choice activists try and use straw man arguments against states that try and protect the liberty of infants. They say there must be exceptions for rape and for the health of the mother.  Those exceptions, though extremely rare, maybe valid discussions to have, but they should not stand in the way of protecting the natural rights of 99.99% of all babies that are killed by abortion.

Even the most zealot of pro-choice activists is disgusted when they hear news stories of babies being left in dumpsters or starved to death by their negligent parents.  So, why is it so difficult to see that by advocating choice they advocate the same kind of horrors?  Why is it that they refuse to see that, now, THEY have become Death, the destroyer of worlds?


Anonymous said...

Though I do not agree with your view of either pregnancy or the pro-choice view, I am writing in the interests of communication. In the first sentence of the third paragraph of your essay, you use the expression "the central tenant." This should be "the central tenet." It's a common error and I've sent corrections to both pro-life and pro-choice sites, so please don't take offense.

theKansasCitian said...

Thanks for the heads up. I appreciate it.