Right to Life

Here is a reprint of an earlier post of mine about abortion.  Although I think that my opposition to abortion is clear by my writing, I don’t think that I have actually explained my position since this post - and when this post was written, I think we were averaging less than 50 visits a day. 

Here you go:

Since when is “our right to choose” our most basic right? Although this is a point that is subject to opinion, I think it would be easy to argue that our most basic right is that of life. For without life, no other rights can be exercised. In short, the right to life is the right from which all others are derived.

Now, I agree that the right to choose is a right. However, like all rights, it is bounded by the rights of those around us. The exercise of a right to the violation of another’s right is an abuse of that right and ceases to be a right. For instance, I have a right to life. But I do not have the right to kill someone for their organs to save my own life. That would be a violation of their right to life. Thus, my right to life ends when another’s begins. One of my favorite quotes from Jefferson wonderfully explains this point:

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

So, where am I going with this? Precisely to my position on abortion. I believe that life begins at conception. Now, I could be wrong, but it is the only logical point within the gestation process upon which I can define a breaking point. Before conception, there is no possibility of life. After conception, life exists unless some event intervenes to end it. I leave open the possibility that I am wrong, but since the stakes are so high, I will err on the side of caution if I err at all.

If life begins at conception, then it stands to reason that it is immoral to violate the baby’s right to life. Some may argue that it is equally immoral to violate the woman’s right to choose. This is wrong on two counts. First, if weighing the relative magnitude of rights, the right to life would logically outweigh the right to choose, since without life, the baby forfeits all other rights as well. Second, the woman (in most cases) made a calculated choice at conception. The only situations in which the woman did not choose conception is in the case of rape or incest. But my first count still applies: it is immoral to deprive the baby of his/her right to life and its derivatives.

The one and only situation in which I support abortion is when the mother’s life is in imminent danger. Early in a pregnancy, the baby can’t live outside of the womb, so it is better to terminate one life rather than let both lives perish. Later in the pregnancy, when both people have a chance at independent life, it is simply a choice of which one to choose? Not an easy choice and I don’t envy those who have to make it.

1. A beautifully crafted argument.  You’re not attacking anyone.  You are not spouting hate.  You are simply stating facts that have led you to the most logical stance on a particular subject.  It just so happens that the most LOGICAL stance is also the most loving and the most compassionate stance as well.

   It’s unfortunate that others cannot do the same without ridiculous amounts of anger spewing from their mouths.

   Posted by on April 28, 2004 at 2312 hrs