Erin left a question for Faemom on a recent post, asking how one can be pro-choice and anti-abortion. This seems to be quite the fad lately, taking the stance that one can somehow be both. A good friend has come to the conclusion that abortion is, in fact, murder, but that these murders should be safe and legal. So she’s pro-choice.
I’m trying to wrap my brain around this logically, but haven’t come up with something that makes any sense.
When you terminate a pregnancy, does it take a human life or not?
Seems to be a fairly simple question. If the baby (or fetus, if you prefer) isn’t human, at what point does it become human? At birth? At the end of the first trimester? How do we tell, since science apparently hasn’t defined the human-merely-being date? (an e.e. cummings reference, for you non-lit people)
Obama says it’s beyond his pay scale to make such a distinction. If it’s beyond his pay scale, why is he allowed to make the decision in the first place? Why not say, we don’t know, so let’s hold off until we do? We don’t know concretely, so, obviously, the answer is to just go ahead and “terminate”, right? Shoot first and ask questions later? If we’re not OK with that logic in Afghanistan, why are we OK with it here?
And so we legalize murder, making it somehow morally justifiable to end human life in a sterilized, emotionless environment. Cover it in nuance and dress it up in an individual right, and there you have it.
I think most pro-choicers bury the morality behind activism. Most pro-choicers choose not to, or don’t, think it through. I could be wrong. In fact, I’d love to be proven wrong- I’m a major supporter for the government having as little as possible to do with my day-to-day life.
The latest health care debacle plan of Obama’s would classify abortion as an essential healthcare right of Americans, and provide tax dollars to fund it.
And we’re anti-abortion?
Perhaps not so much.