Posted by
Doc Stephens on Saturday, February 09, 2008 11:03:20 AM
Pro-life or pro-choice? For years, I was somewhat baffled by this question. this is an example of an artificial dichotomy. It is as if we must somehow fit into one or the other of these two undefined categories of opinions and the word will sum up everything you need to know about us based upon our stance on this subject. Actually, there are many subtle differences of opinion and shadings of meaning that drive us into one or the other of these categories, and 99 percent of us never have to think about or declare which group we choose to join. Some declarations are based upon which group we wish to have accept us with open arms. If you want to be a card-carrying conservative, you had better delcare that you are pro-life, or they'll never let you join the club--and vice versa for a liberal. Well don't ever run for public office without making a carefully crafted declaration for all to read, and then be prepared to suffer the consequences of extreme stereotyping.
Here is where I stand. I don't believe a woman or her physician, or anyone else, should ever take the life of an unborn person, solely for the purpose of taking that life. The taking of a life should never be arbitrary or for the convenience of another life or lives. In my view, such an action would fit rather nicely in the category of actions we call murder and it should not be allowed in a civilized society. If a pregnant woman has a medical circumstance that she and her physician believe threatens the life of either the woman or the child, then everything possible should be done to try to save both lives. I believe it is the right of the woman to choose a course of action in this case, as long as the chosen action is not murder. So I'm both pro-life and pro-choice.
Now comes the subtleties. When is a living entity a person? When does life begin? How can we know the intent of a physician who takes an unborn person from a mother? Did the physician try to save the unborn, or just discard it? Medical science understands the difficulties and very low probabilities of survival of a fetus that is in the first or even second tri-mester, yet there are situations where a medical procedure is deemed necessary to protect the life of the mother. Every day, physicians struggle with incredibly complicated and extremely emotional cases where they must decide if and which heroic efforts are appropriate. Such an effort to save one life, might actually result in the sacrifice of another or others in the case of multiple embryos or fetuses. Until we've faced such a dilemma, we can't possibly empathize with those who must make such a life or death choice. The government, local, state, and federal, should stay out of those cases.
Life doesn't begin, it continues, but it changes. Sperms and eggs are alive as are embryos, fetuses, and obviously infants. You can never win an argument about when life begins. You can argue successfullly, though, about when "a" life begins. It is at the moment when a sperm fertilizes an egg to become a zygote. At some point in time, you have a zygote (a single cell that has the genetic potential to live a life) and that is a new living entity that didn't exist before. From that point on, what was that single-celled zygote changes and develops and eventually becomes conscious of itself and recognized by others as a person. I would argue, the single fertilized cell we call a zygote, is a person with some potential to be born and live a life. As a civilized society, we should do what we can to protect that individual and support it on its journey through life. I believe we should allow the mother, the physician, and the father to choose what to do to save, protect, and support that person. As long as that is their intent, they should be allowed to choose.