I'm pro-choice, but it's not what you think

Politicians use the word "rhetoric" when they think the opposite side is using unfair language to describe them and their positions. However, rhetoric itself is not necessarily bad. It helps us to frame debates around the central issues by using effective and persuasive language. The debate regarding abortion has been framed by rhetoric from both sides. Those against abortion call themselves "pro-life"; the obvious inference is that their opposition would be "anti-life" or "pro-death". While this moniker may be true, I highly doubt many that support abortion would accept this point of view. They prefer the term "pro-choice", implying that their opposition would be "anti-choice". Here is where I would like to focus our discussion.

I am pro-choice. But not in the sense that anyone would have you believe. And I would say that the majority of those opposed to abortion will agree with me. You see, we all (or almost all) agree that a woman's rights should be protected. She has the right to choose with whom to engage in sex. No one I know would suggest that any woman can justly be coerced into having sex with anyone she doesn't want to. Any person is to be protected in the same way, as innocent people (regarding the law), so this would include all people, adult or not. Her choice is correctly and justly protected in that sense by laws regarding rape, sexual assault, etc. The other way is also true; it is her right to engage in consensual sex with any other adult she chooses (remember, I am not making moral equivocations). This would technically apply to adolescents as well as regarding legal matters, but children are easily preyed on by perverse adults, and laws protecting children are necessary. I would generally agree that laws about sex in our country are just and fair, and I see no reason to discuss them further at this point. So I am pro-choice for women when it comes to when and with whom to engage in sex.

Second - and fewer pro-lifers will agree with me here - I believe that women have the right to prevent pregnancy with preventative birth control. Science has produced many methods, and there are additionally many other natural methods of preventing pregnancy that are highly effective and do not need to be described in detail. Obviously none of these methods are fool-proof, but the exceptions tend to prove the rule. I would not grant the same rights to children or adolescents that are still under the protection of responsible adults. Sex is a moral issue regardless of whether one believes that to be true or not. As such, the parents or guardians have a legal right to enforce the morality in their family, so teens still living at home - not providing for themselves - do not have claims to all the rights that adults do. We do not grant them other privileges (driving, alcohol, voting, etc.) even though those issues effect them. If those adolescents are functioning as adults, providing for themselves, then so be it. They can be granted the same rights to contraceptives medically. But the government owes them no access simply because their bodies are capable of engaging in sex.

As I read back over what I have already written, I am afraid that I have gone too far into detail and perhaps convoluted my message. However I deem it necessary to show in as great of detail as I can that my position is not, as some pro-abortionists would suggest, sexist toward women. I believe that every right a woman can exercise in order to prevent pregnancy is her right - not the least of which is the most effective birth control, namely abstinence. In this sense - and I want this to be perfectly clear - I am in agreement with the pro-choice argument: a woman has the right to do with her own body what she thinks is best. The rhetoric of calling me anti-choice fails when held up to scrutiny, and I refute anyone who would criticize my stance as anything other than fair and beneficial to women. Now for the hard part.

The difference lies now in how my view of abortion differs from that of its proponents. If, as they would say, a fetus is a non-person, then an abortion is a medical and scientific matter. The argument that it is an attempt to dodge responsibility and consequence of sex is not valid here, because the same could be said for the use of birth control. The fundamental argument boils down to whether a fetus is a human life or a growth equivalent to a benign tumor. I highly doubt that any proponent of abortion would remain so if they honestly believed it killed a person. But no matter how many times it is repeated that this is a medical issue the fact remains that it is a moral and philosophical question.
What makes a human? A fetus carried to term, born as a baby, is obviously accepted as a human being. Our society places a special emphasis on the protection of babies and young children. We would be (and are, when it happens) appalled by a mother or father killing their own children. We despise those who hurt the innocent and defenseless. Why is it any different in the womb? Because it is smaller than a human living outside the womb? Humans come in all sorts of sizes. Is someone with dwarfism less human than a normal sized person? Is Yao Ming intrinsically more of a person than Tom Cruise? Where is the line of size difference that says, ok it's this big, now it's a person?

What about developmentally? In the first trimester, a fetus looks very little like a human being at all. Is there a dividing line of development that we can show where it becomes a human at a certain stage? We certainly do not look at prepubescent children and declare that they are inhuman. And yet a newborn is obviously undeveloped in comparison with a twelve year old, which in turn is undeveloped in comparison with a 40 year old. Again, what is the standard? There is an argument that until a fetus can sustain life outside the womb, it is not a person. The main problem with this argument is the concept behind the sustenance of life. A newborn cannot sustain life outside the womb alone any more than a baby in the second trimester. A fetus growing in the womb needs nutrition and protection in order to develop and live. A child must have someone else to feed it and care for it or it will die. What is the fundamental difference? This does not make it less human. Are only adults who can care for themselves worthy of being considered human? Where objectively is the line where we can say that a fetus has grown to the point that it can live in the outside world without aid from an adult?

Is a fetus human when it can feel pain? There are disorders of the nervous system and paralysis that cause even adults not to feel pain. Is it when there is a beating heart present? There are those with pacemakers; they need an artificial heart to survive. Are they subhuman?

You see, any of these standards for humanity or personhood quickly become nothing but arbitrary rules imposed by an unobjective observer. I submit to you that there cannot be an argument against a fetus's personhood which is not arbitrary. We have no acceptable standard to differentiate between an incompletely developed human and a completely developed human that is not arbitrary and subjective. Any argument that says a fetus is not a person from the instant of conception to the last breath begs the question whether there is such a thing as being a person at all. This subjectivism leads to relativism. A person is whatever I want it to be. At this point the argument breaks down, as there is no guiding principle as to how to apply it. We cannot accept arbitrary conditions placed on an idea by a person. We surely cannot imagine a worldview which denies such a thing as humanity. That position is inconsistent with our nature, our actions, and what we understand about the world. There is, unequivocally, no philosophically tenable viewpoint that a fetus is not a person. And we believe that innocent, defenseless (which babies certainly are) people are worth protecting. And, in fact, our government does just that. In all manners outside abortion, an unborn baby is treated as human. If someone accidentally causes the death of a fetus, that person can be charged with manslaughter (and murder if it is intentional). Why in this one issue is there a difference?

Not only does logic lead us to this position, but so also does the word of God. I have until this point tried to show that this issue is just as much an ethical, philosophical debate as it is religious. However, God undeniably has something to say on the subject and deserves to be heard. Psalm 139:13-16 is used popularly to show God's work in unborn babies, who are knit together in their mother's womb. Luke 1 is also useful in showing that the baby inside Elizabeth had a spirit and even recognized when Mary who was carrying Jesus in the womb was present.

The pro-choice argument almost always includes the emotional appeal to the plight of women who are victims of rape and incest or who may die by carrying their pregnancies to term. I would agree that these are very pertinent issues worthy of discussion. But without coming to an agreement that abortion kills a defenseless human being, we cannot grasp the gravity of these situations, and discussion will be insubstantial. There can be no meaningful dialogue regarding abortion without the mutual realization that killing a child is killing a child no matter what box the argument comes wrapped up in.

So I am pro-choice. I believe that we should protect the right of women to make their own decisions, whether morally correct or not. I have common ground with those who argue for the woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. But I am unashamedly pro-life. We cannot fail to protect the innocent lives that are being lost every day.

A couple of final points. A much more powerful proclamation of these truths was done recently by John Piper and I wholeheartedly recommend visiting desiringgod.org and listening to the entire message entitled "The Baby in my Womb Leaped for Joy". More information regarding abortion, statistics regarding "necessary" or "emergency" abortions, and racial abortion issues can be found at abort73.com. Also, the argumentation and reasoning behind the ruling of Roe vs. Wade make a mockery of our legal system and of reason itself. Whether you agree with the ruling or not, you would be hard-pressed to agree that the ruling makes any sense in light of the reasoning provided for the ruling. It is insulting to our intelligence that we have been forced to agree that Roe v. Wade is a good example of due process. Even I could have written a better argument for decriminalizing abortion.

Finally, to my fellow people who consider themselves pro-life: we need to take a long look at ourselves. I truly believe that being anti-abortion does not make us pro-life. This is an enormous issue, and a very important one; however, unless and until we are willing to face the other life issues, we cannot live up to our self-imposed description. To be pro-life means fighting disease, poverty, genocide, unnecessary war, violence, and death in all of its forms. We cannot give up the fight on abortion, but we cannot stop there and pretend that we are contending for life to the best of our abilities.