A Word for Pro-Life Folks

ImageI love pro-lifers, but God help em their zeal is often misplaced. One has to be a fundamentalist Liberal to deny that life starts at conception. Anyone with half a brain knows this is medically and biologically true. Anyone arguing otherwise, is either innocently ignorant of this or is a zealot for Liberal and Progressive values, which makes them no better off than the misguided pro-lifer.

The abortion debate doesn’t really center around “when does life start”? It is medically and biological fact it begins at conception. A honest Liberal will realize that. Biology and medical experts testify to this. It is common sense.

The abortion debate must move from pro-life to pro-personhood! That is where the debate really is! Progressives and Liberals don’t argue about life; they argue about personhood. Notice terms like “fetus”, “it”, “clump of cells”, and “clump of tissue” are thrown around. This is an attempt to dehumanize the human baby living inside the mother. It is their belief that this baby has no rights because in their mind rights don’t begin until one is outside the womb. If one ever conceded that the baby had rights it would boil down to the mother’s rights being more important.

The debate is about personhood and if the baby is a legal person. However, that doesn’t go far enough. The baby is legally a person with legal rights protected by the Constitution, but this is a moral and ethical question not merely a judicial one. So pro-lifers take the debate and that zeal, in a healthy way, to where it needs to be: personhood!

About Joel

Joel is a 32 year old currently residing in the southeastern United States. His interests lay in philosophy and theology. He is a writer for The Christian Watershed.

3 thoughts on “A Word for Pro-Life Folks

  1. If you get a chance you should read “This Mortal Flesh: Incarnation and Bioethics” by Brent Waters. The question of life and personhood is of utmost importance in science and the medical fields, how we define personhood makes all the difference. Waters proposes speaking of unborn children as “neighbors”, which is centered on Jesus’ teaching, “love your neighbor as yourself.” Interesting idea that could be fruitful. But like you said, both sides are misguided by ideology…so we just bang our heads against the wall.

  2. points well received. I do think that the prolife movement is headed in this direction, however glacially slow it may be. However, I am no legal expert, but I would like to point out that there have been arguments against so called “Personhood amendments” in that they could backfire and push back accomplishments prolifers have made.

    In fact, don’t hold me to this, but I think I heard this from one of the Supreme Court Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who is very pro choice.

    The thinking goes somewhere along these lines: since a fetus would be then legally considered a “person,” there could result more new legal pushes for “unrestricted rights to abort”, (despite states having the constitutional authority to preserve the safety, welfare and morals of its citizens) in order to keep an innocent, legally defined, “unborn person” from living in desperate, inhumane circumstances.

    So again, it could fall either way. But I think we are going there, however slow.

  3. Gee. So the solution to someone living in desperate, inhumane circumstances is to kill them?

    Do you really think that argument would fly?

    I don’t know where you get the idea that “pro-lifers” are “glacially slow” about this.

    Aren’t YOU a pro-lifer? Who exactly are you speaking about? 🙂

    As a pro-lifer, I speak to the person I’m speaking to, and many people still reject the humanity of unborn children at conception. This is based, I believe, on the same kind of ignorant discrimination that it took to consider black folks not human or subhuman — it’s about physical appearance and difference; you’re too different from me to be human.

    Sometimes, if you can get past that with a person, you can move on to personhood, but that is a very difficult proposition because there is no way to communicate with the child and therefore no real evidence that a person is present unless you accept it by faith.

    I find that it is helpful to use the language of civil rights; power over the powerless, oppression, etc.

    I agree that it is helpful to use language relative to loving one’s neighborh. Unborn children are homeless, hungry, naked; they are quintessentially the poor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s