Guest editorial: Pro-life movement isn’t about women’s rights. It’s about right and wrong. | ParkRecord.com

Guest editorial: Pro-life movement isn’t about women’s rights. It’s about right and wrong.

Tory Welch
Coalville

The pro-life movement isn’t about suppression. It’s about right and wrong. It isn’t about women’s rights or health care or bodily autonomy. American women have every right that men have — plus one. The right to end an innocent human life at their own discretion.

Since the slogan lacks any actual reason (or logic) I’ll rebut some pro-abortion arguments that contain some substance for consideration. First let me say that women who are considering this decision should be treated with kindness and compassion. I don’t blame most of them, I blame a society that has embraced moral relativism — the idea that we each can choose for ourselves the definition of right and wrong — and one that has convinced many women that respect and equity in a man’s world require a woman to stamp out any unwarranted influence that she may be subjected to by a man. Even if that means stamping out a life growing inside her. I see these women as victims, and this is the rationale they are sold:

• A fetus is not a baby: OK, I concede I don’t know when a soul or a conscience or life enters a body. But neither do you. Since most abortion advocates belong to the party of science it should be no problem then to default to the standard of life by which every other living creature is held — the heartbeat. If you can reason yourself beyond that, you must at least admit that a fetus is a potential life. Consider this: If you found what you thought might be an original Picasso painting at a yard sale, you would treat it as a valuable work of art even though it was not yet proven. A fetus is potentially not just a priceless work of art, but a brilliant artist who may contribute inestimable value to the world, if only given the chance.

• Poor conditions: Since we’ve established that a fetus is indeed a human, we must accept that ending its life because we can’t afford to care for it is still ending the life of a human. It’s not legally or morally permissible to put down a toddler due to economic hardship (not yet anyway) so extending this rule to all stages of development is only consistent.

• Unwanted pregnancy: My sympathy for women who abort babies simply because they don’t want them is granted only to the extent that they’ve been deceived by others who have numbed themselves to the reality of abortion. Abortion is not a contraceptive.

• Environment: Environmental solutions will come from innovation, not eugenics. Great ideas come from great people; great people come from great mothers who choose life.

• Equity: Is it fair that women have to bear the burden of child birth? No! But you might want to take that up with God or nature or the universe, not your legislator. Until that’s resolved, one might consider only having responsible sex with a committed partner who is willing to provide adequate support.

• Rape and incest: This is a terrible tragedy and cruel circumstance. However, the circumstances of conception don’t reduce the worth of the baby. I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise.

• Medical necessity: Abortion to save the life of the mother or to prevent the certain suffering of the baby is, in my view, the only coherent moral argument for ending the life of a pre-born baby.

The pro-life position acknowledges that no matter what stage of development a human life is in, it is capable of becoming something greater. Life is good. Everyone deserves the opportunity to find out for themselves.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.