Andrew Zipperer’s recent article, “Protesters’ pro-life arguments prove ill-conceived,” (Georgetown Voice, February 4, 2010) showed a vast and astounding ignorance about the pro-life movement it attempted to analyze. While it’s honorable that Zipperer made some effort to understand the protesters he met at the January 22 March for Life, he failed to deliver a balanced or holistic view of the pro-life movement.
Zipperer argued that since pro-life protesters disagreed about other life issues such as the death penalty, healthcare, and animal rights, there isn’t any element of authentic or moral truth in their arguments against abortion. This logic is fundamentally flawed. I agree that the divisions within the pro-life community are tragic, but they have no bearing on the legitimacy of the movement as a whole. I personally follow a consistent life ethic, as does the Catholic Church and many other pro-life organizations. Georgetown University Right to Life, it should be noted, proudly supports a platform that defends life at every level, for all human beings, from womb to tomb. Just because a few people out of hundreds of thousands disagreed over the death penalty, healthcare policy, and other issues does not mean that the fight against abortion has no basis or that the protesters lacked consistent direction.
Besides its logical fallacies, Zipperer’s piece also lacked sensitivity and consistency. He seemed to claim that fetuses can feel no pain, but failed to provide any evidence for such an assertion. In fact, the vast amount of medical knowledge that we have today confirms fetal pain. Abortion is a behind-the-door execution of a human being. I think your eyes should be opened to the pain of others, instead of making unfounded claims that they are incapable of feeling pain. Furthermore, elsewhere in his piece, Zipperer cites the fact that some protesters expressed support for the death penalty as evidence of inconsistencies within the pro-life movement, but he doesn’t think through the implications of his stance on the death penalty. If death row criminals are placed under anesthesia and technically feel no pain, is it all right to kill them? Personally, I don’t think so, and I don’t think Zipperer would think so either. So why does he think it is acceptable to kill fetuses just because he assumes they cannot feel pain?
Zipperer also argues that the lack of support for universal healthcare among the pro-life movement invalidates their opinions on abortion, but he doesn’t examine why so many pro-lifers are opposed to healthcare reform. Personally, I fully support efforts for universal healthcare, especially for pregnant women, mothers, and children, because I believe this supports a pro-life society in which every child is wanted and can be cared for. But I know that opposition to universal healthcare does not make someone anti-life. My support of universal healthcare is tempered by a deep concern that my tax dollars could go toward funding abortions, a fear held by the vast majority of pro-lifers. This is a legitimate and rational concern that Zipperer should have considered when discussing healthcare reform with pro-life supporters.
Before making such broad, sweeping, and unsubstantiated generalizations, Zipperer should have made a genuine attempt at understanding the pro-life movement’s arguments on abortion. Instead, he simply attended one pro-life event armed with his own preconceived notions of the movement. It is possible to be truly, consistently pro-life: against abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia. I suggest that Zipperer join GU Right to Life in its various volunteer activities at the Northwest Pregnancy Center, where the pro-life belief is put into action, where mothers and children in need are cared for directly. He could also join us in participating in monthly blood drives. Or perhaps he could have attended the anti-death penalty event that we hosted last week. Instead of making a good-faith attempt to understand the realities of the pro-life movement, though, Zipperer presented a flimsy straw-man version of the movement that he could more easily argue against.
The pro-life movement is diverse and full of energy, despite Zipperer’s general statements to the contrary. As with any national political movement, it is nuanced and not all of its supporters’ beliefs are identical. Unfortunately, Zipperer had little interest in seeing the truth of the movement as a whole. (techreport.com)
I appreciate your thoughtful critique.
I understand the pro-life argument. I stated it explicitly in my article: “Life is sacred, and it should be protected” (2nd paragraph, line 2). I displayed the inconsistencies amongst the crowd not so much to invalidate the movement as a whole as much as to indicate the consequences of such unsubstantiated, reactionary reasoning. My goal, which was misconceived, was to introduce an objective form of reasoning, namely, to argue from the measurable factor of suffering.
You rightfully request evidence for my assertions regarding neonatal perception, or fetal pain. As it was a Voices piece, I didn’t feel the need to toss around excessive citations. But, as they were requested, here is a pro-life site where those interested can attain information about sensory development: http://www.ncrtl.org/LifeLine.html . This site attests that pain is not perceivable before the thirteenth week, before which, it should be noted, ninety percent of abortions occur (provided by another pro-life site: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html ). A more recent and comprehensive research endeavor, one which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, involved conducting a meta-analysis of fetal development studies; it concluded that capacity for pain is rare before the third trimester (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/8/947). If you refer again to the second site, you will see that over ninety-nine percent of abortions occur before this point.
But these figures are not the only relevant data. As I should have made more clear, pain is not the only factor in suffering. A consciousness (the ability to significantly cognize experiences, feel complex emotions, form memories, etc.) amplifies suffering far beyond mere physical pain; moreover, even by the most lenient standards, significant consciousness postdates the general times of abortion by months(see the journal entry above). My arguments still stand regarding a necessary separation between fully grown animals (human or otherwise) who possess this consciousness and prenatal humans who do not.
Regardless of how you perceive the impact of the crowd’s inconsistencies on the legitimacy of the movement, the assumption that the people who support the death penalty or resist health care legislation or consume meat while advocating against abortion is some type of fringe movement is patently false. I would direct you to the State of the Nation Poll conducted by an independent research organization, Research 2000. It can be found here: http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437 . The relevant questions are near the bottom, and the overlap is more than significant. Reading the methodology at the bottom will explain the circumstances.
Enough about the protestors, though, and back to this article. “I think your eyes should be opened to the pain of others, instead of making unfounded claims that they are incapable of feeling pain.” Based on this statement, it would appear that all pro-lifers would be vegan, anti-war individuals who would allow for euthanasia on the basis of otherwise inescapable pain.
You are right to assume that I find your hypothetical, painless capital punishment immoral. I dispute this killing not on the grounds of mere pain, as described earlier. These individuals have a consciousness; they are self-aware. They may have inflicted great harm on society, but their execution is an unnecessary elimination of highly intelligent life. This issue can be addressed another day along the lines of relative societal impact, but today the decision is based not solely on pain, but on suffering.
I need not reiterate the confounding unanimity amongst the crowd in resistance to governmental intrusion into the health care realm for perceived societal benefit. Addressing your concerns on this issue, pro-life doubts about health care legislation’s morality due to the potential federal funding of abortion were valid. They were valid between the years of 1973 and 1976 before the Hyde Amendment was passed. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment and the Nelson Amendment would have ensured that this precedent was upheld in the current debate. Rest assured; though American taxpayers will continue to fund military engagements – morality judgments on which need not be made here (however, in the Opinion Research Corporation polls on the Iraq war over the past years, a majority has consistently opposed the engagement), not a dime will be spent on the facilitation of abortion for low-income women.
“I fully support efforts for universal healthcare, especially for pregnant women, mothers, and children, because I believe this supports a pro-life society in which every child is wanted and can be cared for.” Universal opportunities for health care do not make every child wanted, nor does optimism ensure sufficient resources for such a procreative effort if sustained over an indefinite period.
“ I know that opposition to universal health care does not make someone anti-life.” No, but if the economic concerns are set aside momentarily, this does make them seemingly unsympathetic – an emotion which should be absent from such a movement.
Though the communal efforts of the GU RTL are undeniably gracious and I appreciate your invitation, I independently help mothers and children in need. This summer I helped build houses with Habitat for Humanity for low income and otherwise troubled families. I also already give blood regularly. I am O Negative, and, because I have never been infected by the cytomegalovirus (as have a wide majority of the adults in the US), my blood goes to newborn infants who can universally receive my blood type and would be affected maliciously by any transfusion with CMV presence.
I did not state that the pro-life movement was either not diverse (homogenous) or lacking energy. Actually, I would think that the inconsistencies and the fact that a quarter of a million people attended the March that I recorded in my article would prove the contrary in both cases.
Once again, thank you for your passionate response.