Defending Life

The pro-life cause rests on reason

By Christopher W. Jensen

In early October, members of Harvard Right to Life put up a two-day display outside the Science Center. It consisted of a hundred and forty American flags, along with signs explaining that the flags represented the number of abortions per hour in the United States. Because of the exhibit’s strategic placement, I passed by it several times and saw many students cynically or indignantly react to its message. Consequently, I feel that a defense, or more accurately an explanation is necessary to outline basic reasons why conservatives are generally pro-life rather than pro-choice.

I should begin by limiting the scope of this article. I do not think I can feasibly end a decades-long debate with a few authoritative keystrokes. Therefore, I will not argue why Roe v. Wade was a tragically misguided ruling, or why Barack Obama’s strong pro-choice position is very disturbing. This is not meant to be an inflammatory argument, but a thought-provoking explanation of conservative pro-life values. 

There are several common pro-choice arguments. Mothers should have the right to determine whether to carry a pregnancy to term. Children can be deformed, inconvenient, or simply unwanted. A child put up for adoption is statistically more susceptible to becoming a criminal later in his life. A woman who was raped or who is in danger of her life because of a pregnancy should be given the choice to abort. Against these many arguments, pro-life supporters have only a few counterarguments. One is that abortions because of rape or danger to the mother’s health constitute less than one percent of abortions, and cannot justify the other ninety-nine percent of abortions. However, even if pro-choice supporters accept this argument, they still have a plethora of other arguments for the remaining ninety-nine percent. Here, pro-lifers have essentially one argument: Abortion is immoral. 

So the abortion debate boils down to this single question: Is abortion immoral? If it is not, pro-choice supporters immediately win. Bluntly put, abortions are generally more convenient than birthing and caring for an unwanted child, and if we have a constitutional right to privacy, we should have a right to abortions. Fair enough. However, if abortion is immoral, then all pro-choice arguments are feeble at best and shockingly heartless at worst. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on pro-lifers is to show why abortion is immoral. 

If abortion is morally wrong, then we must accept that there is a higher moral standard, set either by human society or by a higher conscience. This leads to two obvious questions, the first of which is “Can a society set a higher moral standard?” 

No. There are certain tenets, such as honesty, respect for parents, and fairness that are common to societies around the world. Take respect for parents as an example: The Ten Commandments say, “Honor thy father and mother.” Confucian teachings emphasize the concept of filial piety. Unless Confucius read a copy of the Ten Commandments, we must conclude that the Judeo-Christian culture and Chinese culture independently embraced the idea that children should respect their parents. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, humans constantly appeal to an unsaid moral standard that they expect others to share. However, if a society can set a higher moral standard, then different societies can have equally legitimate perceptions of morality that may be absolutely contradictory. In that case, we might as well throw morality out the window, which very few people are willing to do. 

By answering our first question, we have also answered our second obvious question: “Does the higher moral standard come from a higher conscience?” 

Yes.

It necessarily follows that the moral standard must be derived from a higher conviction. Morality is an absolute shared by all humans regardless of culture or society. Admittedly, there are cultural differences on some of the finer points such as, say, drinking, but people largely agree over the main parts of the moral code: treat others well, maintain an honest life, work hard, etc. How, then, can we apply this moral standard to abortion? 

The morality or immorality of abortion lies in the definition of a human. By “human” I do not mean whether an embryo or a fetus is Homo sapiens, but rather the point at which an organism ceases to be merely a collection of cells and becomes a person with the inalienable right to life. Unfortunately, there are currently several definitions vying for supremacy. So far, we can only agree that an organism is human at birth. This implies that a baby born at 40 weeks is the same as a baby born at 25 weeks, when from a biological standpoint they are extremely different. However, this hypothetical 25 week-old infant is not physically different from a 25 week-old fetus, but the infant is a person and the fetus is not. The definition of a human hinges on where the organism in question happens to be at the time. Clearly, this definition is woefully inadequate.

On the other hand, many argue that personhood begins at conception. The Catholic Church, for example, cites Bible verses such as Jeremiah 1:4-5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.” However, this definition means a dividing ball of cells has the same basic human rights as the President of the United States, and not everyone is ready to accept that conclusion. Other definitions of personhood rely on a fetus’ ability to feel pain, to have a developed brain, or to be recognizable as a human. Unfortunately, these definitions are all painfully vague, and there is no clear verdict from the medical community when a fetus definitely fulfills any of these criteria.

Conservatives are by definition cautious; their favorite adage is “Better safe than sorry.” If they agree to change, they prefer that it happen slowly. In the case of abortion, we are rushing into something that we do not fully understand. From a conservative standpoint, if we do not know what a human is, we should not be pro-choice. The definition of a person is what separates systemic genocide from millions of personal choices.