A quarter of a million activists descended on D.C. this past weekend to advocate for the sanctity of human life. As a liberal vegetarian seeking to understand the nuances of the pro-life argument, I ventured down to Constitution Avenue—notebook in hand—to question the marchers in the 37th annual March For Life.
With plenty of time and paper to use, I fell in step with the marchers. Their arguments appeared simple and straightforward. They claimed that there is a fundamental problem with disrespecting humans: life is sacred, and it should be protected. However, the apparent ideological consistency among the crowd disappeared after this point. Upon further inquiry, life concerns fragmented around capital punishment and health care. Some of these pro-life marchers supported capital punishment. Where some felt that health and life were connected, others argued against any association. All agreed that governmental intrusion into medical care was unjust. Every single marcher I talked to was omnivorous.
Based on these answers, the marchers are willing to kill fully cognizant criminals as punishment, ignore the medical well-being of fully cognizant humans (who happen to be poor or genetically deficient), and brutally slaughter fully cognizant non-human animals for food. But, they find it morally offensive to abort unfeeling, pre-conscious cellular bundles?
The only common thread among these decisions, as I see it, is a consistent disregard for quality of life. Humans, both innocent and guilty, are shoved in overcrowded prisons. Low-income families are plagued by easily preventable ailments. Animals are brutalized in factory farms on their way to anaesthetized slaughter.
In light of these examples, I could not understand what could account for such confusing conclusions. Is their movement not titled “pro-life”? In my opinion, only entirely, unfounded beliefs could favor the well-being of unconscious cells over mature, intelligent living beings. Even if restricted to humans, are the above abuses worse than the elimination of an unfeeling cellular mass?
Instead of arguing religious semantics or “when something becomes human,” there has to be a more straightforward method of reason regarding the value of life. One such method is determining whether or not a particular action causes unnecessary suffering.
Such an argument would require some data, though. Relevant information would include whether the subject in question feels pain (if so, how much) and how he, she, or it experiences emotion. The following figures should shed a little light on the picture: fetuses cannot feel pain before the thirteenth week; ninety percent of abortions occur before this point; babies have no consciousness (unable to form memories, have complex emotions, etc.) until months after birth, etc. Taken together, these facts indicate that there is no suffering endured by the aborted party.
Fully-cognizant humans, on the other hand, feel angst and terror before being killed and pain as they are killed. Poor families feel the full force, financially, physically, and emotionally, of simple illnesses. The complete disregard for the mistreatment of fully-conscious animals is required to be omnivorous.
Until this movement adopts consistent, defensible arguments, my opinion will stand. The issue could be argued along the lines of the horrors of systematized killing, the debasement of the human person, or any number of other avenues. Couching oneself in spiritual complacency, on the other hand, I find unacceptable. People need to realize the implications of their argument. A true pro-life argument extends to ending capital punishment, health care to the needy, and virtual pacifism. A purely pro-life argument extends to veganism, anti-pet euthanasia, anti-animal lab testing, and the like. The marchers need to carry their pro-life views to their logical conclusion or at the very least, add some rationality to their dogmatic views.
You are a hypocrite at the highest level. Ever count how many bugs your car or lawn mower kill each year? And you probably don’t feel for these marvelous and wonderful innocent creatures. The difference is, that we are humans with souls.
I’m pro-life. And I am open-minded enough to admit that there are thoughtful, intelligent, questioning people right now who are debating for the pro-choice cause.
You are not one of them.
Abortion is a deeply moral, sensitive, and personal issue affecting women that deserves to be scrutinized through philosophy, medicine, theology, law and educated dialogue. Not through a biased kid with a pencil, paper, and logical fallacies.
Had you done a little research, you would’ve discovered: the majority of pro-lifers work to abolish the death penalty. The Catholic Church, the most avid defender of life, decries the cruelty and mercilessness of capital punishment. Also, there are plenty of pro-life Democrats who support public health care. Check out: http://www.democratsforlife.org/
So I beg you, don’t walk into an event, interview select and uninformed protesters, and write a seemingly conclusive and coherent article about the pro-life philosophy.
Just as liberal vegetarians or feminists do not like to be lumped into one simplistic, stereotypical category (and rightfully so) neither do pro-lifers. So unless you want me to automatically assume that you’re an angry Birkenstock-wearer who doesn’t bathe, don’t assume that pro-lifers are narrow-minded hypocritical religious fanatics without an argument.
Please take the time to educate yourself, and then you can contribute something worthwhile to your side this discussion.
As a vegetarian pro-lifer, I’d like to respond briefly to the claims you’ve laid against us pro-lifers.
1. You suggest that ability to feel pain and emotion are what determine the personhood of a human being. Is a person paraplegic less deserving of life than you because she is incapable of feeling pain in much of her body? Is a person who suffers from autism more deserving of life because he feels stronger emotions? Is a person with alzheimer’s less deserving of life because she is less cognizant of her surroundings? You also suggest that physical development plays a part – a fetus is merely a “clump of cells (yet the majority of abortions occur at 9-11 weeks – google 10 week fetus pictures) – but yet again, think of the paraplegic. If we argue that personhood rests on a factor such as sentience, emotion, consciousness or physical development, we must create a sliding scale whereby some lives are more valuable than others. Pro-lifers refuse to do this. We insist that every human life is equally valuable, and that the right to have one’s life protected cannot be given up without an active choice.
2. There is nothing logically or morally inconsistent about believing that all human life deserves protection and yet believing that the consumption of animals is justified for human health and well-being. The two issues are entirely unrelated. As for “brutally slaughtering,” bear in mind that conservatives are far more likely than liberals to get their meat from hunting or farming.
3. Although I am personally opposed to the death penalty in any nation that can effectively keep its citizens safe from harm without using it (and, in fact, the Catholic Church, which represents the largest contingent of pro-lifers is perhaps even more anti-death penalty than that), I understand that the two issues are not moral equivalents. Criminals may feel pain when they are killed (unlikely, however, given the massive amount of painkillers injected), but they have also inflicted a great amount of pain on others if they are subject to the death penalty. As conscious human beings imbued with willpower and self-determination, they took their life into their own hands on the day they committed a crime that they knew to be punishable by death. Under this logic, everyone is imbued with an essential right to life that demands protection from the government, either by God or at least by our constitution, yet that right is forfeited when they make a choice to commit a crime punishable by death. A person can lose one’s right to life only by personal choice. Since a fetus is incapable of making or expressing such a choice, their right to life cannot be forfeit.
4. On the topic of health care, I hope it will suffice to say that everyone desires health care policy to be as compassionate and effective as possible. There is legitimate disagreement on how to do that, within the pro-life movement as in any other cause.
5. You’ve here done much what “Religioulus” did: you, an educated, intelligent college student, have taken unconscionable advantage of people likely less educated and intelligent than yourself. A far braver approach would have been to interview your many peers who attend the march from Georgetown University.
I am staunchly pro-life, anti-death penalty, I support affordable healthcare for all (and ideally universal healthcare), and I feel that war should be avoided unless all other avenues are exhausted and it comes in the defense of innocents.
But other people who are pro-life don’t have the same beliefs as me. I didn’t realize that makes me wrong. My mistake.
Wow, this article is just flat out poor and biased.
I’m pro-choice. This article is simply embarrassing for the pro-choice side. Just…wow!
Andrew is correct in his assessment of the logical inconsistencies of the pro-life movement. As Andrew euphemistically pointed out, the pro-life movement is a conglomeration of mindless religious fanatics who favor bundles of human cells over fully developed human beings. Earlier today I scratched my nose. Some human cells were obliterated in that process! I am a mass murderer.
In fact, a newly fertilized egg is smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. But wait, the rights of that minuscule egg are weighed more heavily than the rights of, oh, I don’t know, a woman who was raped.
To Marc: Actually, you are am embarrassment to our side. When you say things like “I just think women should have a choice,” it is a weak argument because they respond easily with “Give them a choice to murder?”. You must prove that it is not always wrong to take human life to make a valid argument in favor of keeping abortion legal.
To Emma: You clearly have no understanding whatsoever of what an “opinion” column is. They don’t treat all sides equally – they advocate for one side. Regardless, I have yet to see a pro-life argument framed in terms that does not bias the debate toward human life. I will continue to wait for that day.
To Caitlin: Your post is a bloated mess. There is a clear difference between people who are paralyzed and fetuses. Andrew already pointed out that fetuses cannot think, whereas paraplegics can. That is just one fundamental difference of many.
To Iusedtobean”unfeelingcellularmass”: Wow, your name alone is moronic. Yes, if your parents had an abortion, you would not be here. However, if your parents at any point used birth control, or your dad ever masturbated, sacred sperm have been wasted that could be fertilizing eggs and creating humans. Therefore, by your logic, next time you see someone use a condom, make sure to point out to them that they are stealing potential life.
To Dale: 1. You have no evidence for souls. You must prove they exist before we take your argument seriously.
2. Bugs lack the complex nervous systems seen in mammals.
3. Oh yeah, even if souls do exist, presumably aborted ones go straight to heaven. Sounds like you are doing them a favor.
To Andrew: Great column.