May 01, 2006
Why I am a Pro-life Activist
I thought that it wouldn't be a bad idea to do a post on this subject as I had a comment posted asking for a defense of the pro-life position. It makes sense that people would wonder why I would be willing to go out on the street and risk my personal safety and comfort for this position.
What it all boils down to is that the fetus is a human being that deserves the full protection of the law. I do not think that a fetus should have any different status then a newborn. Medical textbooks will even tell you that a fetus is a human being. We know from history that creating two classes of human beings with different levels of protection is a set-up for human rights violations. For example, woman, Jews, blacks and children were all once not considered people and consequently were denied justice. If you consider the situation this way then all reasons in defense of abortion become irrelevant. If your argument can only be applied to a unborn person but not to a newborn then your argument is a based on the premise that the unborn are not people. If this hasn't convinced that your argument is irrelevant then try checking out the Centre for Bioethical Reform's faq page. They do a very good job at logically address different common pro-choice arguments. I'll also answer any questions that you leave as comments or that you email to me.
The reason that I'm willing to do so much for this cause is again because I believe that the unborn are people that deserve a right to life. If we were to regularly kill infants whenever they were inconvenient I would become a part of a movement to protect them. If we regularly subjected people to slavery then I would speak out for them. Basically, I care about justice for all people regardless of their race, age, cognitive ability, gender or social status and I'm willing to put myself on the line to help them. I'm trying to take Jesus' command to love others as you love yourself seriously. If I were being oppressed I would certainly want others to speak up on my behalf. This is enough to motivate me to activism.
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
- Desmond Tutu, activist
[Insert big clappy emoticaon]
I think we shouldn't just be anti-abortion or pro-life-- we should be in favour of Charter Rights for unborn babies and the equality of the unborn child. We pro-lifers have to push the envelope a little more to get more for the unborn child. We have been a little too timid in Canada. I'm not saying we should be abrasive or brash, just stand up more often, say it more loudly and proudly. I loved my unborn children as equals, and I wanted equal rights for them, just as I want equal rights for unborn children.
You are the real thing Rose.GOD BLESS YOU!
I am very torn on the issue of perspective.
On the one-hand you have, as you say, the life an unborn child. On the other hand, you have the woman's freedom to carry or not carry the unborn child.
I think to argue that "life" should be given priority over "freedom" is over-simplistic. For example, thousands are dying in Africa for basic lack of water, food, etc. Should we send America's rich people to prison unless they all of their money to these causes at least until those people are no longer dying? Why is a woman who is impregnated through rape any more responsible for the life of another than, say, a millionaire who gives nothing to help the starving in Africa?
So, I'm on the fence on this one, putting me in an extreme minority of Americans. The one thing that I think pro-life and pro-choice should agree on however is that the number of abortions should be minimized. If pro-lifers want to meet that goal, they ought to spend less time picketing and more time letting young unwed mothers know that, if they have the baby, their needs and the needs of their baby will be adequately met. I'm amazed how the "religious right" cares an awful lot about the lives of babies up until birth, but after that, do not expect any handouts.
Posted by: BRIAN at July 5, 2006 04:43 PMI should add that, I am a non-Christian, but I appreciate your web site. I do not agree with everything you have here, but you are hitting the nail on the head with regard to how much of the "Christian" church is not following the footsteps of Christ. I do not agree with Jesus in all respects, but his teachings are a lot closer to something I can believe in than most of "the church's" teachings.
Posted by: BRIAN at July 5, 2006 04:52 PMThank you for your feedback on this issue. I'm definitely open to having rational conversations with people about this topic.
I think that the problem with your argument is that there is a difference between neglect causing death and active killing. Our laws acknowledge this as well. With abortion there is someone actively taking the life of another human being. How would you feel about someone arguing that mothers had no responsibility to feed their babies? They could argue that it wasn't their body and therefore they could just be grossly neglectful of their children. Obviously most people would think that this would be insane. Interestingly enough, though, we would convict someone who is grossly neglectful of a dependant and inadvertently cause their death with a different crime then someone that actively does it. I think that abortion is a situation where someone is actively taking the life of another person. While I think that all abortion is wrong, I also think that there are different levels of guilt for those who have abortions based on how much they know of what they are doing and how pressured they are by life situations. In this regard, I don't think that abortion is directly parallel to someone who sneaks up on an unsuspecting child and shoots them in the head. Both kill a child but one assailant is likely more aware of what they are doing.
Personally, I also think that people should be willing to sacrifice their comfortable lifestyles for the sake of those that are starving in other countries. A big part of my blog is trying to encourage people, but especially Christians, to do just that. While I know that you're not a Christian I want to point out that this is what the Bible instructs people to do. Jesus says that we are to love our neighbour as we love ourselves. How are we loving others as we love ourselves if we live in luxury while other are starving? 1 John 3:17 asks, "if anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?". I think that the calling of Christ is to do as much good for others as we possibly can. Out of appreciation for what God has done for me and in recognition that I am no better then anyone else I seek to love others as he loves us.
The more that I think about it the more I realize that neglecting charity is essentially gross neglect causing death. If someone left a child on my doorstep and I left it out in the cold to die this would essentially be no different then refusing to help others across the world. I guess that this situation also comes down to ones level of awareness of their crime although I don't think that is why the crimes are handled differently by the law. I think that the reason that we have laws against the one and not the other is that our laws are set up to protect our society rather then people. This is why we have tax funded social programs, which are basically mandated charity, but we only give a token for international aid. This is why we have minimum wage for our people but our happy inflicting sweat shop labour on other people. In my opinion, this is also why we have legal abortion but illegal homicide of other people.
Posted by: Rose at July 10, 2006 11:59 AMWhat gives you or anyone else the right to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body? I especially don’t believe the government has the right to have a say in this issue. Consider the fact that our president does not agree with abortion because of his religious beliefs. Well, I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe in the same religion as him and I can’t tell him what to do with his body. So why, in all honesty, do you think he has the right to tell anyone they can’t do what they want to theirs. Let’s just consider how he would feel if one of his daughters was raped. Do you honestly think he would make them carry that fetus full term? I’m sure his view would change quickly and he’d make them abort, especially given his social status as our “Commander and Chief.”
For your information, pro-choice does not just mean pro-abortion, it means giving the woman a right to choose. Even if by choosing she takes the route of Contraceptives or even to the extent of abortion, she still deserves those rights. Emphasizing the fetus’ rights doesn’t make sense because the fetus does not even hold the capacity to support its own life functions without the woman. Since she is the reason why this organism even exists, does she not have the right to make the decision to carry out the rest of her pregnancy? (McKinley 47).
We’ve all heard the ideology of the anti-abortionist party, “I believe that a fetus deserves the rights we all have as human beings.” Of course, the fetus can be considered a human being to you. However, in literal terms, the definition, according to the Bio Chem. Department of Northwestern University, a fetus is “the unborn young from the eighth week of pregnancy to birth; an organism in the stage of development that follows the embryonic stage” (Lefers).
Even you said in your blog that by “creating two classes of human beings,” since that’s what you consider a fetus, “with different levels of protection is a setup for a human rights violation.” Well, in your blog you just created those two classes of protection, so you’ve just admitted to caring more for the rights of the fetus than for the woman and her rights. Tell me how your reasoning now makes sense. It seems you’ve been so caught up in the idea of the rights of an “organism” that cannot even support its own life functions without the mother. How does it then deserve the same rights as a living breathing human being, giving “it” a choice makes no sense?
After viewing your reference site, Centre of Bioethical Reforms (“Choice Blues”), I can understand where this gruesome image about abortion comes from. Like all surgeries, abortion can be bloody and ugly. What I found was disgusting. An abortion, which you say you don’t agree with, and neither does this site. Yet, they have the nerve to film an actual abortion. I must say, that is a very twisted way of getting your point across. Don’t consider yourself well-informed because you’ve watched a video, taped by the pervert willing to lower himself enough to want to intrude on such an event. This is a personal thing, not to be shared with the entire world. What if that girl had a good explanation for what she was doing? Was she possibly raped? Did she just have unprotected sex? Or was this unavoidable? Was she never informed about the precautions she should take to avoid pregnancy? Did you ever stop to consider her emotions, her background, her story? No, you were quick to the assumption that she is bad, the details of her life mean nothing; it’s her actions that you judge her upon.
An account you may not have been familiar with is a story from Florida in 2003. There was a disabled 22-year-old who was raped and became pregnant while living in a group home. (“In re Guard”) The state assigned a guardian to the fetus but not to the young girl. The state senator would not budge; he stood firmly in the belief that the rights of the fetus be equal, if not more important than the rights of the woman and her health. In response, a group called the Center for Reproductive Rights came to the young woman’s assistance. They filed a request to have the guardian of the fetus be terminated. In doing so, they made the rights of the woman the main focus, so no matter if she aborted the child or not, it would all be held in her best interest.
The mission of the Center for Reproductive Rights is to educate women of all ages on their rights they bear upon their body (“Pro-Choice Public”). When you hear that you may think this just pertains to abortions, but it contains all aspects of the female reproductive system. They want for all women to have a satisfying sex life without worry. In addition, they inform people all over about their rights to bare children and that they can do so whenever they feel necessary. The Center also works to provide others with the information about safe sex practices, such as contraceptives. They’ve also been known for informing the government of their wrongdoings, such as not covering contraceptives for people on Medicaid. The belief that with a stronger healthcare system we could avoid many abortions, legal and back alley, is what supports this group.
I would like to submit myself as an example. In all actuality my body cannot physically support another life inside of me, but I could easily get pregnant if I didn’t use the proper precautions. I have rods attached to my spine (connecting all my vertebrae except for a few at the end of my spine.) I was told when I was younger that my body wouldn’t be able to carry a child unless I was on bed rest the entirety of my pregnancy; otherwise, I could run the risk of bending my spine. This alone could affect me and my family in a negative way. Laying around all the time, throwing off the financial stability of my family could have a negative effect on me and on my marriage. So I know if this situation were to happen, I would have to abort, rather than risking my mental and physical health along with the stability of my family. Wouldn’t you take it into consideration if these could be the effects on your life? Not everyone’s bodies can be cooperative with a pregnancy.
Maybe faith is part of your reasoning for being a pro-lifer. From the statement you made about “Jesus’ command to love others as you love yourself truly.” I’m assuming you may be a Catholic. Well, if faith is what drives you listen to this. There is an organization called Catholics for a Free Choice. (Schalatek ) They concern themselves with the rights a woman, not a fetus, has for her reproductive health. Things they have worked on consist of stressing the importance of birth control to the Pope, how the effects would decrease the abortion rate and increase safety for women.
Have you ever stopped to think that when a woman miscarries that that is God’s abortion? You wouldn’t show the same level of disrespect for a woman in this situation, would you? What is the difference of your body telling you that you aren’t ready for a child and your mind telling you that you aren’t ready? Essentially, they are the same thing, body and mind that is, so why would you feel any differently between those two situations?
When you bring your religion into an argument, don’t think this is going to be enough to convince others. Not everyone worships the same way as you and not everyone’s beliefs will lead them to the same conclusion that you have. To some, pregnancy is nothing, something to be avoided at all costs. Others view pregnancy, myself included, as one of God’s greatest gifts. We all view this issue in different ways because there are so many diverse perspectives. No matter what your views, make sure you back up your opinions with facts, not just a link to a biased website.
Works Cited
“Choice Blues.” Abortion No.org.2003.DanielleVanderhoff.
23 July 2006 http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/audiovideo.html.
Durrett, Deanne. “The Abortion Conflict: A Pro/Con Issue.”
Enslow Publishers Inc. New Jersey, 2000. 28.
“In re Guardianship of J.D.S” CRPL.org. 24 July.2006.
Danielle Vanderhoff. 24 July 2006 http://www.crpl.org/crt_preg_risks.html.
Lefers, Mark. “Definitions.” BiochemNorthwestern.edu. 26 July. 2006. DanielleVanderhoff.25July2006 http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definition/Def-F/fetus.html.
McKinley, Brian. “Abortion: Opposing Viewpoints.”
Greenhaven Press Inc. San Diego,2002. (45-53).
Schalatek, Liane. “Fighting Religious Fundementals in the US: an Interview with Frances Kissling.” Catholics for Choice.org. Spring 2006. DanielleVanderhoff.24July 2006 http://catholicsforchoice.org/news/inthenews/2006/2006sprbt_fightingreligousfundamentalisms.asp.
“The Facts about Reproductive Health and Rights.”
ProtectChoice.org .24July. 2006DanielleVanderhoff. 24 July 2006 http://www.protectchoice.org/essay_help.html .
I want to respectfully respond to your comments. Firstly, our society tells people all the time what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Rape is illegal, as it should be, but it restricts what a man can do with his body. A rapist may argue that it's not fair to make rape illegal because he should be able to do whatever he wants with his own body. Of course, this is crap because we consider that his actions have a victim and so we create laws to protect the victim. Abortion should be illegal because it also hurts another person.
A fetus is a human being. If you would like some references check out the
texts referenced in the following response from the Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform's response to when life begins:
Q. When does life begin?A. Scientists agree that life begins at conception, also referred to as fertilization. Drs. Keith Moore and T. Persaud’s embryology textbook used by medical students at the University of British Columbia confirms this:
Human development begins at fertilization[emphasis in original], the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell is the beginning of embryonic development. The zygote, just visible to the unaided eye as a tiny speck, contains chromosomes and genes (units of genetic information) that are derived from the mother and father. The unicellular organism, or zygote, divides many times and becomes progressively transformed into a multicellular human being through cell division, migration, growth, and differentiation.[i]Just as an adult was once a teenager, toddler, and infant, so too was she once a fetus, embryo, and zygote. These labels merely identify different stages in the development of a human being. Moore and Persaud acknowledge this:
Although human development is usually divided into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, development is a continuum that begins at fertilization (conception). Birth is a dramatic event during development, resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth; important developmental changes occur after birth—development of teeth and female breasts, for example [all emphases in original].[ii]In 1981, French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune asserted the following when testifying before a United States Senate Subcommittee:
To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.[iii]Common sense supports this perspective: because it has human parents, it is clear that the unborn child is a human being and not some other kind of being. After all, dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats, and humans beget humans. Who you are today had a beginning point, and science has discovered that point to be at fertilization. Although you have changed and continue to change your appearance and abilities, your genetic makeup remains the same.
I know that these are not fictitious quotes as my husband has actually seen these texts in his own medical school training. Check them out for yourself if you're interested. My point with this is that I don't think that woman should have a right to kill another human being. The fetus' right to life trumps the woman desire for comfort. In no other situation in our society do we allow one person to kill another because they are inconvenient, depressed, stressed out or even that their health is at risk. Why is OK in this situation? I argue that it's not.
You mention that the fetus is completely dependant on it's mother for survival as a defense for allowing abortion. There are many types of people that are completely dependant on other humans that we still grant the right to life. Newborn babies are completely dependant on their mothers (or another care giver) but they are protected. Also, prior to birth for several weeks the fetus is viable outside of the womb but it is not protected. Independence is not the criteria that is used to determine whether or not someone should be protected from violence.
You accuse me of not considering the situation that the woman is in. I want to say that I think that the fact that so many woman feel that they need to have an abortion is a sign that our society has failed woman. I think that there should be way more services to help pregnant, distressed woman. I know woman that have faced difficult pregnancies. I can definitely say that we need more services available so that woman feel like they other options besides abortion. Offering abortion is an easy way to "help" because it doesn't require long term support. Surely we can do better then this.
I also want to mention that I am not Catholic and not opposed to non-abortifacient birth control methods. In situations where woman should not get pregnant because of health reasons I think that voluntary sterilization is perfectly reasonable. I am Christian but my faith is not my primary reason for my pro-life position. Even if I were an atheist I would still know that a fetus is a human being and that all human beings have a basic right to life.
As far God being equivalently guilty of an abortion every time there is a miscarriage I really have to disagree. I don't accuse God of murder every time someone dies from natural causes. Death entered the world as a consequence of sin and selfishness. Rather then living harmoniously for eternity with God when Adam and Eve sinned they created a separation between God and humanity. Rather then damning us right at that point God, in his mercy, gave Adam and Eve a second chance to return to him in submission to his will. That chance has a time limit that lasts a life time. We all have inherited a sin nature from Adam and Eve that naturally causes us to be selfish and unconcerned about God and his ways. God gives us all the chance to repent but for a time. Death effects everyone, including the unborn, but it is not God's fault.
Posted by: Rose at July 28, 2006 10:39 AMFirst of all, I would like for you to view this subject from someone elses viewpoint other than your own. What would you do if YOU were raped and became pregnant? Do you really mean to tell me that you would care a child full term, knowing that what is inside of you is the product of rape, not love? How would it make you feel? Don't be so quick to judge others before viewing from there shoes.
I still don't think that a fetus can be compared to a fully developed child. A fully developed child (out of the womb), if left alone could function, where as a fetus has no other life support other than it's carrier(mother). So the two really are not a good example for comparison.
Also, I don't think you are understanding what you keep refering people to. The Bioethical Reforms websites are biased pro-life websites. From the view of a pro-choicer, do you think that those sites will sway my opinion? What I would like to suggest to you is read the book, Opposing Viewpoints of Abortion. It examines both the pro-life and pro-choice views on this issue. This way you can see some of the good points the other side may have that you've never heard, since you seem to stick to pro-life sites. Explore the idea of pro-choice, I'm not telling you that you must believe in it. Get to know both arguments, not just one.
Posted by: Danielle at August 3, 2006 07:00 PM