I am pro-life. I believe that taking a life that humankind is obligated to protect and preserve not only on religious grounds but on clear social, psychological, and evolutionary grounds is wrong. Thus, I do not think that war is an acceptable means to preventing death nor is it a rational means to resolve property disputes since it subordinates life to the ownership of goods and geography. While there are gray areas such as the possibility that sacrificing a one or a few lives in order to prevent the deaths of a substantially greater amount, these are cases that we must take care to understand in order to seek the most rational outcome for a given circumstance. That is to say, one circumstance where the most rational outcome is for say, a captain of a ship to sacrifice his or her life for the lives of many others to persist, cannot be universalized to every circumstance where sacrifice of one life may be the most rational position. There are too many variables at play to make a pre-emptive judgment all the time.
With this said, I also support the conclusions of Roe v. Wade as a rational outcome due to the overlap of so many variables that create conditions in which abortion is an outcome for pregnancy. Roe v. Wade does not assume that in every pregnancy abortion is always a rational outcome. Therefore, it is not a case law that makes a value judgment on the circumstances in which an abortion may be an outcome of a pregnancy.
What it actually did do was overturn the assumptions of states that held abortion was a criminal activity regardless of the circumstances. Key to this is the issue of when a pregnancy is "viable" that is, when a fetus can live independently of its mother. Specifically, the case challenged the assumption that abortion was rational only in order to save the mother's life. In other words, the case overturned the criminalization of abortion in those cases other than those where the mother's life was in danger during pregnancy. This is where the issue has become so politicized and polarized that I am simply unsure if people on both sides, but quite especially on the pro-life side, understand the outcome if their wishes are granted.
What if Roe v. Wade is finally overturned? There seems to be this continuing language that President Obama is "pro-abortion" a term that Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairperson Michael Steele reiterated during American talk show Meet the Press this morning. This is an incorrect characterization of President Obama's position as Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, his respondent, noted as well. The majority of Pro-Choice activists who wish to uphold Roe v. Wade in law are not simply in favor of the act of abortion itself. The issue really is whether or not it should be criminalized and if so, to what extent and for what penalties? To the pro-life protesters who have been railing against Notre Dame's honorary degree conferral to President Obama, my question is what is the outcome of the protest? Is it across the board criminalization of abortion? Clearly it must be criminalization at some point. What kind of prosecution should be in place if the RNC had their way? For example, in Texas or California should prosecutors then seek the death penalty for doctors and pregnant mothers seeking abortions for viable fetuses?
Further, no matter how one would parse the variables in order to criminalize abortion, how do we know that it would be a more effective solution in saving lives than preventative measure to reduce unintended, unwanted, and nonviable pregnancies? Obama, along with various Democrats and some Republicans, has been very clear that his position is to reduce the incidents of pregnancies that are most likely to have abortion as a viable outcome, e.g. unintended or unwanted pregnancies. We can control those variables because we already know them in great detail. We can predict to a good degree which pregnancies are most likely to result in abortions, when those abortions are to take place in the cycle of pregnancy, and other social and psychological factors that are in play.
What we do not know is if re-criminalization will have the intended effect of saving lives. Perhaps our intuitive sense of justice tells us that it will work. But our intuitive sense of justice with the death penalty and prison has not been met with evidence that these are adequate deterrents for crime and actually rehabilitate criminals so that they are less likely to commit those crimes again. Indeed, our intuitive sense of justice is, I would argue, not a good barometer for the kind of policy we should be constructing here.
So what is the outcome of the pro-life protest? What is the intended outcome of Michael Steele, Orrin Hatch, Mitt Romney and others with the abortion issue? If it is not to re-criminalize abortion, then what is the protest about? If it is not about re-criminalization, and about saving lives, then why is the Obama position irrational to meet those ends? If it is to re-criminalize, then what does this look like and what are the variables in play? I think we assume we know what the RNC and various pro-life activists want, but I think we really do not. Indeed it is not clear what pro-life activists actually want. What is the rational outcome of the pro-life activist?
Related posts:
