IN THEORY THE RIGHT TO LIFE COULD BEGIN AT ANY TIME
If the Right to Life begins when we say it does, then in theory we could set this beginning at any point. We could say abortion is permissible for six months after conception, but not later. We could say that the child can be killed up to the age of one week, or one year, or whatever we choose.
One reason for setting the time at conception is that this is the most “pro-life” answer possible.
The two obvious possible answers are conception and birth. We can say the Right to Life begins at conception. Or we can say the Right to Life begins at birth. Each of these is a very simple, straightforward answer. Each is very easy to understand. Each is easy to adjudicate.
The Right to Life is vital to civilization. The Right to Life for unborn children is not necessary. In the case of unwanted children, it places a large burden on the parents who have other plans. If the child is unwanted, this fact is also a bad thing for the child.
THE CASE FOR INFANTICIDE
One could make a strong case that for a short time after birth, the parents, or the mother, should have the right to reject the child and to kill it. This would give the parents the opportunity to inspect and examine the child before making a final decision. At this time, most babies come out in good condition. But the planet is being contaminated by radiation and by a multitude of poisons. This condition could become a great deal worse. Parents naturally want to have a baby who is healthy and well formed. From the viewpoint of society or civilization as a whole, it is undoubtedly better to have babies who are well formed. Rather than forcing parents to invest decades of labor into raising a child with a defective body, it would make a lot more sense to let them try again, with the hope that their next baby will be well formed. Let the parents invest their time and money and love into raising a child who has a well formed body with the potential of having a good life.
CHILDREN SHOULD BE WANTED
Men and women want to have children. They love their children. The love of a mother for her child is the strongest human bond there is.
People do not need to be terrorized into having children by the threat of execution for murder.
Planning is good. Making a plan for one’s life is good. Planning when to have children and when not to have children is a very sensible and valuable and worthwhile thing to do.
If a woman, with or without her lover, is desperate to save her career and her life plan from the disaster of an unwanted child, it is harsh and cruel and a damn lie to call this an “abortion of convenience”. Having a child is a 20 year commitment of a major portion of her activities in life. The same is true for the father.
Maybe one or both parents want to go to college or to a professional school. Maybe the mother wants to have a career. Is it God’s will that any young woman wanting a career must be denied any sexual activity? If a young woman wanting a career becomes pregnant unintentionally, is it God’s intention that she must sacrifice her life plan and her ambition? This makes God look like a very sour and hateful old man – not someone who could be loved by anyone.
Married couples have the same problem. Just because they are married, that does not mean they want to have children at any particular time. Maybe they are still in school. Maybe they have some plan, and children don’t fit into that plan at this time. Maybe they have already had children, and now they want to retire or travel or do something that does not involve having more children.
If contraception fails, abortion serves as the child prevention method of last resort. This is an extremely valid purpose. The child should be wanted. A couple, married or not, who want to have sex, but who do not want to create a new child, should be allowed to do so.
Children should be wanted. When a child is unwanted, this is very harmful and disruptive to the lives of both parents. The parents will resent the child. They will not love the child as much as if it were really wanted. This is bad for the child. The child will do much better in a home where it is really wanted. Everybody loses when unwanted children are forced on their parents. If we want strong families, if we want parents who love and care for their children, then we should not threaten the parents with execution for murder, and we should not force them to have children against their free choice. We are, after all, trying to support freedom.
LIBERTY MEANS YOU CAN CHOOSE
In my “LAWS OF POLITICS” (http://www.lawsofpolitics.com/), #20, I say, “Liberty is the right to believe, to think, to speak, and to act, as you choose, without any force or any orders compelling you to act or forbidding you to act in any specific way.”.
If Liberty means you can choose, then those who favor Liberty should be “pro-choice”.
No matter how careful one is in using contraception, there is always going to be some risk of conception when a man and a woman have sex.
Those who oppose abortion say that if an unwanted conception happens, then the mother or the parents must choose between two very bad options – either a very large and unwanted change in life plans, or an illegal abortion. The illegal abortion involves guilt, criminality, secrecy, and risk to health. And it involves the risk of prosecution and execution for murder. Both these alternatives are extremely undesirable.
Those who oppose abortion say that men and women who do not want children and who do not want to risk facing this horrible pair of alternatives, must abstain from sex.
What a horrible sacrifice to demand from those who do not want to have children!
It is cruel. It is not loving. It is not warm hearted.
If the mother, or the parents, chooses to have the baby, then she, or they, has chosen. And she, or they, has chosen to take upon herself, or themselves, the burden of raising the child.
If she chooses not to have the baby, then again, she has chosen. She will probably have other opportunities to have children. But in this case she has chosen to do other things in life for now. And the cost to the unborn child is very small. The spiritual being, if any, who has taken the embryonic body has almost no investment in this embryonic body. That spiritual being, if any, has no claim to involuntary servitude from the mother or the parents.
Liberty is good because the most happiness results when people are allowed to make their own choices, and to do what they want to do. That’s what Liberty is.
A FREE MARKET FOR BABIES
The problem of unwanted babies could be greatly reduced by the simple expedient of allowing a free market for babies. There is no valid reason for prohibiting a free market in babies. There are plenty of couples who want a child, but are unsuccessful in creating their own child. The prohibition on such a market is stupid and just makes everybody miserable.
PEOPLE WILL DO ABORTIONS ANYWAY
There can be no doubt that in many cases of an unwanted pregnancy, the mother, and perhaps the father as well, will be desperate to avoid the disaster of an unwanted child. She will therefore seek an abortion, despite the fact of it being illegal.
This puts her physically at enormously greater risk, because she can only deal with criminals in seeking and obtaining an abortion.
It puts her at risk of execution for murder.
Even if she is not caught, even if no one knows, she now has a tremendous secret. This alone is a terrible burden. If someone knows or finds out, she is now subject to blackmail. This will be a huge spiritual burden and a dark cloud over the rest of her life.
And this dark cloud is quite in addition to the stress of having to kill the baby. Maybe she hates having to kill the baby, but it is necessary for the sake of her life plan. It is cruel to add to this burden the additional burden of knowing that she is now legally guilty of murder.
* * * * * * *
Comments