
<p>Polling and recent elections clearly establish that the majority of the American people favor legalized abortion to some degree. ; Axiomatically, that makes it unpopular to be pro-life. ; </p>



<p>It is not fun to have one cast as some sort of anti-democratic, woman-hating misogynist. But that does not mean the pro-life minority is wrong, however. ; Pro-life is founded on a fundamental moral, legal, scientific, and constitutional foundation – currently contested as it may be. ; ;</p>



<p><strong>The statistics</strong></p>



<p>It is first imperative to understand that pro-lifers are not a monolithic community. ; Some believe that there should be no exceptions. ; Others believe in only one exception – the life of the mother. ; Most believe in exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, and incest. ; Some would allow abortions for very young girls.</p>



<p>Likewise, the pro-abortion community is not monolithic. ; Some believe in abortion at the will of the mother at any time short of birth – and in the extreme, they believe in “abortion” at partial birth or even any time before the umbilical cord is severed. ; Support for abortion drops as pregnancy advances. ; Most Americans believe it should be illegal in the third trimester.</p>



<p>Pew Research shows an interesting merging of pro-life and pro-abortion opinions. ; Thirty-Seven percent of pro-abortion folks believe that abortion should have limits, and 27 percent of pro-lifers believe in abortion only in “most cases.” ; That puts the “no limits” and the “no exceptions” people in a clear minority.</p>



<p><strong>Majority opinion does not make it right</strong></p>



<p>History is filled with examples of a majority opinion being wrong on the matter of humanness or personhood. ; In ancient Egypt, among Mayans and others, human sacrifice was widely accepted among the public. Humans who would otherwise enjoy the benefits of citizenship were reduced to sacrificial property. ; They were de-humanized.</p>



<p>Slavery was an institutional de-humanization – claiming the enslaved as property. ; They were denied personhood by the majority opinion at the time. ; Negroes were dehumanized as ape-ish creatures during the era of segregation in the South by regimes supported by a majority of the populace. ; Arguably, the majority of the German people accepted the inferiority of Jews – often depicting them as deformed imbecilic creatures.</p>



<p>For pro-lifers, the idea of de-humanizing – or denying the personhood – of the fetus is yet another widely embraced immorality. ; And there can be no mistake that the pro-abortion position is to de-humanize the developing human while in the womb.</p>



<p><strong>The question of personhood</strong></p>



<p>The question of personhood is the only valid issue between the pro-life and the pro-abortion communities.  ; All other arguments are either irrelevant or a distraction – or both.</p>



<p>There can be no debate that from the time of conception, we have a developing human being. ; That is beyond question if you believe in science and biology. ; The issue that separates is civic personhood. ; ;</p>



<p>We know by culture and law that at some point in the gestation process, the developing human being is considered a person by all sides – entitled to the rights of an American citizen. ; But when in the ongoing process of gestation does that happen? ; ;</p>



<p>We grant citizenship – personhood &#8212; status even to babies birthed on American soil by foreigners. ; We legally protect the life and well-being of the child in the womb at some point before birth. ; The fact that one child in the womb can be aborted as a non-person while another at the same point of development can be legally protected from harm or death is a major conundrum of the pro-abortion community – although that dialogue is ignored for obvious reasons.</p>



<p>Personhood is a subject the pro-abortion community refuses to debate with any specificity – and any opinions expressed are widely diverse. ; There is no consensus among abortion advocates on a question that demands a coherent answer. ; ;</p>



<p><strong>The bogus political arguments</strong></p>



<p>One of the reasons that there is very little intelligent dialogue between the pro-life and pro-abortion communities is because the pro-abortion arguments are not the central points. ; Rather, they are capricious political arguments that focus only on the woman’s desire at the expense of the father, the unborn, and natural law.</p>



<p>According to the abortion advocates, it is a “woman’s health issue.” ; In terms of relevancy to the pro-life position, that is nonsense. ; Being pregnant is NOT a disease or an automatic threat to the physical well-being of the mother. ; The vast majority of abortions are performed on healthy women who are at no particular health risk at the time &#8212; or throughout the pregnancy. ; The issue is largely one of convenience, NOT health.</p>



<p>Pro-abortion advocates call it a “reproductive rights” issue. ; They assume that their position – and only their position &#8212; is the exclusive “reproductive right.” ; In fact, fathers have a right to reproduce – and above all, the unborn has a right to live under any fair and rational concept of reproductive rights. ; What abortion advocates are asserting is a faux “right” to terminate the life of a developing human being in the womb at will – a right NOT to reproduce at the mortal expense of the unborn and the nullification of the rights of the father.</p>



<p>The second most common claim is that the fetus is part of a woman’s body – over which she has an exclusive right to have the fetus – the developing human being – terminated. ; Of course, it is NOT an intrinsic part of a woman’s body. ; It is NOT standard equipment. ; It is a unique human creation of a woman AND a man – a FACT that is ignored by abortion advocates. ; Though the father bears half the responsibility for the creation of the developing human being – and financial obligations if the unborn is birthed &#8212; he is given no rights over the survival of his offspring in the pro-abortion world.</p>



<p>The pro-abortion world views the unborn human as a discardable piece of flesh despite the FACT that it IS a developing human being – just as the newborn baby is a yet developing human being in need of nurturing to survive. ; The significant difference is that the two parents of a newborn are morally and legally responsible for the nurturing of well-being of the infant. ; Birth is only a stage of human maturation – just as is the fertilized egg … the embryo … the zygote … the fetus. It is not biologically, legally or morally the transition point into personhood.</p>



<p>Though pro-life is often cast as a sexist or racist issue, it is not a gender or a race issue at all. ; The lives terminated or saved represent the full diversity of mankind. ; The purpose of pro-life is to save all lives regardless of gender or race. ; Pro-life is also blind to the future – making no arrogant assumptions or claims as to the future quality of life of the new human beings – nor of the contributions they will make to society, good or bad.</p>



<p><strong>No consideration for the developing human … the unborn</strong></p>



<p>The pro-abortion side of the debate gives no … zero … consideration to the developing human being. ; They declare it a non-person in defiance of logic and biology – giving it the equivalency of a cyst, wart, or mole. ; Rather than determine personhood based on science and civic morality, they express a confused, irrational, and inconsistent political judgment as to when that developing human transforms from an extraneous piece of flesh to a person with all the rights of personhood and citizenship – most fundamentally, the right to life.</p>



<p>De-humanizing the developing human being is essential to pro-abortion thinking because they well understand that acceptance of the obvious completely crushes their position on the issue. ; To admit that the developing human IS a developing human eradicates any semblance of moral justification for abortion. ; It is the termination of a human life … full stop.</p>



<p><strong>Moral confusion</strong></p>



<p>This commentary started by pointing out how cultures have had horrific beliefs regarding classes of human beings, but I have always rejected the moral claim that those who believe in abortion-on-demand are necessarily immoral or evil people. ; Rather they are influenced by the zeitgeist of the times.</p>



<p>In my judgment, the response of the pro-life community is not the harsh accusatory finger, but serious civil dialogue. ; Abortion advocates may be egregiously wrong, in my opinion, but they are not evil – any more than pro-life individuals are women haters.</p>



<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>



<p>The entire abortion debate comes down to personhood – and when and how that occurs. ; Unfortunately, it is a subject abortion activists fear and oppose above all others. ; When does that developing human being attain all the moral, legal, and constitutional rights of a person? ; Until there is consensus on that central issue, the abortion debate will continue to stagnate over irrelevant endless-loop political arguments. ; </p>



<p>I do believe that there will come a day when mankind looks back on the culture of abortion the same way we now look back on human sacrifice and slavery. ; Unfortunately, I will not live to see that day.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

It is Not Easy to be Pro-Life…But Necessary
