The current abortion debate is about human life not choice. (I typed this from a phone while traveling on an airplane so please excuse any grammatical errors)
For as long as I’ve been living I’ve heard Democrat’s are “pro-choice,” and republicans are “pro-life.” This understanding is not only simplistic, but also misleading. I would argue both republicans and democrats are “pro-choice” in some sense.
Political democrats are pro-choice on many “moral” issues, such as the recent political discussions regarding gay marriage for example. Simultaneously, republicans are pro-choice in many economic issues, such as free trade and market. The current argument regarding abortion which has been sparked by what is happening in both New York and Virginia surrounding the issue of whether or not a person should have the “right” to “abort” their almost born, and clearly living Child is not actually a debate that fits nicely into a “choice” debate, and to pretend it does is not “progressive” thinking, it’s simply dishonest and irrational.
The idea that anyone has a choice (nonetheless a right) to end the life, or not save the life, of a say for argument’s sake, 32 week old living and relatively healthy child inside of a mother’s womb is not a “pro-choice” or “pro-life” debate, but it is actually a pro-shedding innocent blood or anti-shedding innocent blood debate.
No science can conclude a third-trimester child has no good chance of living and surviving an early birth, because this happens literally daily in thousands of NICUs across America. Just a few years ago, JR Smith of the Cleveland Cavaliers was in the news, because his baby girl was born after not even 6 months! At that time, the popular News media offered their “thoughts and prayers” for this little girl. Thanks be to God that this baby girl survived and today is doing well.
So, let me ask- when you hear of Smith’s story, do you still then hear the idea of aborting a 32 week old human life (more than 2 months older than Smith’s baby girl was) and do you still see that living, and very capable human life as a “choice?” Some might say, “well the baby is still inside the mother’s womb.” Right I understand, so in the minds of folks who try and argue in such a way I must ask you, so is there any difference at all, in your mind, between a child inside or outside of its mother’s womb? What about if you were to meet a baby who was born at 32 weeks, and you saw it can still breathe, eat, make noises, open its eyes, and show other obvious signs of human life…. and why does this child do so? Because it IS a human life! We are not actually speaking about “potential human lives,” but very real, living, and relatively active lives inside the womb of a woman meant to protect her child and seek to see the child flourish.
So if you still think it’s moral to abort this baby then what makes this human life any different than a piece of property in your view? I would suggest you’re actually viewing and treating this child even worse than a piece of property, and let me highlight this with an example.
Suppose I own a horse which breaks out of the enclosed field only to return later. A few months later my horse shows signs of pregnancy, so I take it for a check-up at the vet, and sure enough the horse is pregnant. But I decide, “this horse is my property and I can do what I want with it,” so I pay to have someone cut the baby horse out of its mother and to dispose of the body. Many would gasp and say “that’s awful! That poor horse…” Is a human life not of more value than this horse which I own? Of course human life is more valuable than animal life, after all, only humans are created in the image of God and are meant to reveal God’s glory. And even further still, think about it, many “progressive thinkers” will be more offended by the death of an unborn horse than by the death of a human life— why? Because our society, by allowing this to go on for so long and get to the point we are treating the taking of innocent human life as a political debate has become entirely de-sensitized to the deaths of children who are not yet born. This is beyond being merely “sad” or “unfortunate,” because it’s morally dishonest, irrational, and absurd.
I end with the call to stop allowing political rhetoric and ideology determine the underlying morals of our society. As long as we continue to treat issues such as abortion like they are political and ideological conversations, rather than ethical ones, then we are doomed as a society morally. We need to be bi-partisan or a-partisan in our pursuit of using rational thought to guide this moral issue, and stop allowing emotionalism and political ideology to decide this moral issue for us as a society.