One of the elemental tenets of Individualism is that

one is free to choose their own path as long as it does not injure the equal rights of another.

A mother’s freedom of choice does not unbalance the right to life of her unborn child.

 

 

We could not celebrate, yet mourn,

your passing from this world unborn.

What could have been we’ll never know.

No face, no name, to make it so.

Might cures or quests have been your gifts?

Or simple friendships, good-night kiss?

Your rightful place upon this Earth,

is empty now, no joy, no mirth.

What grievous crime did you commit,

to warrant punishment like this?

Did inconvenience spell your doom,

or was there simply no more room?

A voice that went unheard in life,

is heeded now amid the strife.

“Don’t fear dear parents though you stray,

We angels love you anyway.”

 

 

I share a birthday with Margaret Sanger, one of the perpetrators of the modern abortion industry. That we have birthdays is a testament to the love of our parents. That she and people of her ilk have denied birthdays to so many is a testament to the quiet evil that has captured our culture, often in the guise of freedom of choice.

​

The debate swirling around abortion in the U.S. is really about the conflict between three of the Natural Rights – Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Generally, these rights are not in direct competition with each other, and each is duly constrained to balance the equal rights of others. In the abortion arena, however, there is, at minimum, the appearance of cross purposes.

​

A clear argument is made by many that abortion of a viable, otherwise healthy fetus violates the maximal of the Natural Rights – Right to Life, and the fact that it is allowed, even sought, by the very people charged with the protection of the most vulnerable, is beyond civilized reason. This “Pro-life” position is often made on religious or spiritual grounds and tends toward the absolute, deflecting the nuanced conditions of birth defect, rape, incest and other involuntary conceptions.

   

In the counterargument, some will make the case that a (provisional) mother’s right to control of her own body is provided as a Right to Liberty - that there exists a presence of that right in the governmental compact between our elected body and the individual, free of undue interference. This “Pro-choice” position is often made on the grounds that no person or government can dictate a woman’s destiny of self as has been done, often egregiously, in the past. It would be more correct to say that the choice of abortion invokes the natural right to The Pursuit of Happiness since nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the right to an abortion specifically enabled (nor prohibited). A woman’s right to pursue a career, travel freely or avoid poverty unencumbered by motherhood makes a case for the pursuit of happiness but does not have the Constitutional blessing of the U.S government when it comes to abortion. The extended arguments of right-to-privacy and the right-to-property in this context are tangential at best and disingenuous at worst. What legislation, if any, applies to this issue must be left to the individual States and ultimately, to the individuals involved.

​

The pursuit of happiness also has a place in the Pro-Life conversation. An unborn child with a severe or terminal condition cannot be expected to enjoy any pursuit of happiness as we might hope or define. As with most of the arguments for and against in the abortion debate, the sword has two edges: Sanctity of Life versus Quality of Life.

​

Through the Humanistic lens, the individual is the center of the discussion. The direct participants to the action may have a different view based on their personal impact than do those who debate the issue in the abstract. In both cases, ephemeral opinions and attitudes can cause tidal shifts that vary over time and circumstance.

​

A central question to this discussion is when does one attain personhood? At what point in fetal development does one become human? Injecting the corollary question of when a person develops a soul further complicates the issue. For those who dismiss the concept of a soul, the answer becomes a bit easier to prevaricate.

   

The absolutist positions staked out by both extreme elements to this schism is made more pointed in the current political climate of the polarized culture war in America. Moral absolutism is in direct opposition with moral relativism. It is the nature of the two that both feed the fire of the other.

 

A favorite false argument is that early abortion should be acceptable because, after all, natural causes result in half of all conceptions self-terminating. But Nature alone reserves the option to revoke certain of the natural rights unto herself and thereby demonstrate man’s subordination, often in brutal and inexplicable ways. In the natural domain, the Laws of Nature supersede those of Man. That the Natural God exercises a prerogative in this matter to take life as well as give life tempts the abortion excuse but supposes an equivalency that is spurious on its face. God does it, why can’t I?

   

Conversely, those opposed to abortion on any grounds argue that all life is sacred, and God’s infinite wisdom should be respected even in cases of forced conception and severe birth defect. God’s Plan and all. The Deist view of God recognizes that Natural Law, and people’s Natural Rights that flow from it, are not decided on a case-by-case basis by an engaged Creator. The full understanding of that relationship is beyond the current vision of humans. The Mystery of Life versus the Miracle of Life.

​

The majority of Americans are morally opposed to abortion but support its legality. Most can agree that terminating a viable, late-term pregnancy is wrong in the absence of an emergent, imminent threat to the life of the mother. They might also agree that aggressive birth-control prior to conception is acceptable and should be readily available. Still, some maintain that abortion should be allowed at any time before birth and others are against any abortion after conception. A question of degree whose answer lies somewhere between these two ends of the spectrum. Both sides to the debate should be strong advocates for a robust Foster Care and adoption system.

 

Situational ethics suggests that moral decisions are context dependent – moral judgements must consider the entirety of a situation and render a verdict that is ultimately guided by brotherly love and genuine concern for all parties. One fears that humans have yet to evolve to a point of wisdom that is required for that level of adjudication.

​

The hubris of humans causes us to see our progress and advancement over the past two millennia as remarkable and superior to the rest of the natural world. Evidence to the contrary abounds. A humbler stance recognizes that what we see as advancement and high civilization is akin to the certitude of the pharaohs. We are enthralled by bright, shiny objects and false magic at the expense of natural miracles. Agnostic medical science and amoral technology is racing ahead of our human selves on the life and death issue of abortion.

​

The parable of King Solomon and the two mothers might offer some insight. When two women from the same household, where one baby had been smothered and another lived, each came before him to vigorously contest the rightful claim to the surviving child, Solomon decreed that the baby should be cut in two with each mother receiving half. The selfish mother agreed to that decree while the selfless mother offered to give up her baby so that it may live. One, determined to be right and concerned only with herself, and the other willing to sacrifice her own needs for that of the helpless child. It might be said that a selfish mother would sacrifice her viable unborn child so she may enjoy life on her own terms, but a selfless mother might also choose to terminate a wanted child with severe health challenges to save that child from pain and anguish, even when counter to religious dictates. Conversely, a selfish mother with no prospects for improvement might keep an unwanted pregnancy to corner an uncommitted partner while the selfless mother under the same circumstances might opt for adoption over abortion. The devil is always in the details. When all of the artifice is removed from the question of abortion, though, choosing Life is generally superior to all other options. Goodwill and brotherly love provide the necessary prisms to see the truth.

       

We are primitive and uncivilized by the measure of the Universe and the Natural God, but a work in progress seeking to be better, endeavoring to form a more perfect human race.

​

Let’s hope our humanity and wisdom catch up to our civilization and progress.

​