Site Overlay

Does “Pro-life” mean being for women being able to choose to kill?

Roe v. Wade has been overruled. Never in my life-time did I think this was possible. The ostensible right to abortion is no longer protected by the judicial fiat of the US Supreme Court, and the decision to either protect the lives or permit the destruction of the lives of children still in the womb is going to each of the State’s legislatures. Federalism wins, and whether or not there will be abortion is now up to the people’s representatives. Phase One of the Pro-life movement is over (at least in America). Phase Two begins, where each state must be convinced to enact Pro-life laws.

The death of Roe has unleashed a tide of bad arguments and disinformation. For Phase Two to be successful these bad arguments need to be countered successfully. One such misinformed person is Nev Schulman, TikTok influencer.

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSRJbxNeM/?k=1

Contrary to his affirmation at the beginning and end of this video, he is not “Pro-life.” Rather, he is pro-killing babies when the mother chooses to kill her unborn baby. In addition to his ignorance of what being Pro-life means, he doesn’t know anything about pro-life laws. This is evident when you consider how he thinks all abortions (even the justifiable ones) would not be permitted under a nation or state’s pro-life laws. It is also evident in how he thinks pro-choice laws (that is, laws that permit the killing of an unborn baby when demanded for any reason) are justified because of the rare and exceptional cases where the killing an unborn child is regretfully necessary to save the life of the mother. 

He provides a litany of examples that he thinks justifies being pro-choice (what he calls being pro-life of the mother). I provide here my responses. 

Becky’s child, at 20 weeks presenting without life sustaining organs, is one of those few cases where abortion may be justifiable. Just because there are a few exceptions to the general rule of not killing unborn children does not justify a liberal law which allows killing for any reason. 

Susan’s child, a product of sexual assault, doesn’t deserve death. We lack a lot of the context of Susan’s story and how she got pregnant, but from the little information Schulman gives it appears that Susan is the one who deserves justice and the biological father of the child is the one who deserves punishment. Justice would deliver to Susan the required financial and social support to raise her child, not a right to kill her child, who is the innocent party. If that choice is unbearable for Susan, let justice give her easier access to adoption services. Justice certainly would not carry out another wrong (the murder of an unborn child) to right the wrong of sexual assault and let the assailant off scot free.

Theresa’s abortion is justifiable, for it would save her life. Killing the unborn child is a tragic decision to have to make, but one fully consistent with the pro-life view. Theresa’s case is very rare, so again we can cite the principle regarding the exceptional not justifying laws which are broadly applicable (See Becky above).

Cathy’s abortion is also justifiable, as a pregnancy for her 11 old body would kill her. Again, fully consistent with a pro-life view and does not justify a broadly applicable law to be able to kill the unborn. We can hope and work towards a day when we are able to preserve both Cathy’s life and the life of her child by the safe removal of the foetus and some form of ectopic surrogacy.

Melissa’s child doesn’t deserve death because she has a dead-beat dad and a poor Mom struggling to make ends meet. Melissa needs financial and social support so she doesn’t feel like she has to kill her child to feed her child’s elder sibling. Offering an abortion to Melissa is not compassion. It’s the cheap way out. 

Brittany’s child doesn’t deserve death because just because her mother doesn’t think she’s ready to raise a child. In one sense it’s too late – Brittany is already raising a child. Going through with the pregnancy may be the making of her as a person. If she feels as if she is not in a good position to give this child the best life it can have, offer Brittany adoption as a more compassionate alternative to killing. Let Brittany live the rest of her life without the guilt of killing her first child, or the pain of feeling as if she must. 

Emily’s selective reduction of viable fertilised eggs from excess IVF is not abortion, that is, if the eggs are put on ice and kept til later. She may wish to go through other pregnancies, or to adopt her children (still in the earliest stages of gestation) to others who cannot conceive. This situation calls for improved IVF processes that reduce the excess of fertilised eggs, not one that calls for a law that permits the choice to kill for any reason up till birth.

Jessica’s child doesn’t deserve death because her father is a physically abusive “monster.” It’s Jessica that deserves a better husband and requires good financial and social support. Again, not compassion to offer her the choice to kill her child—for her or the child. 

Vanessa’s child is unfortunate dead already. Extracting the dead corpse of an unborn child is not abortion, it’s necessary healthcare which would not be denied her anywhere under any pro-life law. 

Lyndsey is already a teenage mom. Abortion won’t fix that. Her unborn child doesn’t deserve death because her mother and father had sex before they were ready for the potential consequence of parenthood. Lyndsey can adopt her child if she doesn’t want the responsibility. What she can’t do is take back the fact she is already a mother. 

Courtney’s ectopic pregnancy will in all likelihood kill her and the child will die anyway. A justifiable abortion to save a life is fully consistent with being pro-life. No pro-life law will prevent her receiving appropriate healthcare. Instead of defaulting to killing the child though, it would be preferable to pioneer new medical science to preserve and save life. 

In conclusion, Pro-choice people (even the undercover ones like this dude, who don’t admit it), only masquerade as compassionate. They will signal their virtue while they advocate killing (or the choice to kill) the most vulnerable.

Voice for Life

With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the national shame of abortion on demand has been removed from the United States. Although individual states may still choose to permit this monstrous and immoral practice, at least America as such is no longer committed to it.

“America! America!
God mend thine ev’ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.”

Katharine Lee Bates, America the Beautiful.

Bring on Phase Two!

facebook
Twitter
Follow

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 Aletheia. All Rights Reserved. | Catch Vogue by Catch Themes