Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this guest post are solely those of the guest author.
As I gaze at my first granddaughter, who was born today, thoughts flood my head about life for the most innocent of all human beings and the very troubling approaches that many pro-lifers use to further that message.
The standard answer for a pro-lifer to when life begins is at conception. It’s a scientific and Biblical fact that makes us wonder why the rest of the world doesn’t see this obvious response to a fundamental question. Another common statement is that abortion kills this young, innocent human or child in the womb. Unfortunately, the words and actions of many who profess these views show sizable inconsistencies.
The world, including obviously pro-lifers, is rightfully outraged when a child is murdered out of the womb. They want justice. The media and society generally give the utmost attention to the aftermath of this horrific act and usually cover the legal side of it in great detail.
Comparatively, a large number of pro-life individuals and organizations are perfectly fine with having much more limited charges brought against those who are involved in the killing of a child in the womb. They rarely call for penalties against the mother who came to an abortion facility to have her child killed. It also seems that there’s not an outcry from those who believe in the sanctity of life to have legislation that charges an abortionist with murder.
Furthermore, how many in the pro-life field publicly state that killing a human in the womb at any stage should be deemed the same as the murder of a born human? Pro-life bills throughout the country usually have a defined week limit that any child in the womb can be killed before that specific time. Pro-life organizations promote, write legislation, and applaud when a heartbeat, 12- or 15-week bill traverses through a legislature. They have joyous celebrations when one is passed and signed by a governor. Although a heartbeat bill is the best of those options, abortions still happen before then, and most occur before 12 or 15 weeks. Also, many pro-lifers, especially legislators, are willing to add exceptions, such as rape, incest, or the usual life and health of the mother.
The incremental v. abolition debate has been going on for decades, and those on the incremental side will say that’s all they can get when there is a political solution to this most significant human rights violation. I think so many well-meaning pro-lifers get caught up in the inertia of the political process, but they really need to take a step back and analyze their beliefs. In reality, what these pro-lifers are saying is they have the same view of the child in the womb as those on the pro-abortion side.
The conclusion, by their actions, is that the human in the womb doesn’t deserve the same treatment as one outside of the womb. If they were given the exact equal nature as a born human, then the only acceptable response is to have a complete abolition of abortion, with no exceptions. Similarly, would it be permissible for slavery to be legal for some and outlawed for others, such as allowing for those under 25? Would anybody agree that the Nazis or communist regimes should kill people belonging to a specific category, such as Jew, or of a specific age?
I understand the two sides of the debate and have planted myself in both camps over the past 20 years. What it comes back to is if we are going to be serious and consistent about our pro-life beliefs, we must, without a shadow of a doubt, treat the human in the womb precisely as we are treating those outside the womb. Consequently, the laws should be equal when killing humans, no matter where they are located.
How can I look into my granddaughter’s eyes and be comfortable or even agree that precious humans in the womb can be killed if they are of a certain age? I just can’t under any circumstances.
