From pro-choice to pro-life

I used to be pro-choice/anti-abortion, where I did not agree with abortion personally but I agreed with the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion. I would have encouraged a woman to not have one, I would have done everything I could to convince a woman to not abort a fetus, but at the end I would say it’s her choice and I would not try to change the law that allowed her to do so.

Recent discussions and arguments have led me to switch my position from pro-choice to pro-life, where I believe that abortions of convenience or on-demand should be made illegal, and abortions should only be allowed for cases of rape or the mother’s health. I have not become a militant pro-lifer, nor would I be too upset if abortions were severely limited to pre-first trimester or earlier, even up to one month or so. However, I have reached the mind-set where I can’t call myself a pro-choice person anymore. Before I say what changed my mind, I just want to give my thoughts on the majority of pro-life persons and arguments that I see out there.

Abortion is a topic that is like gasoline on a fire. It is almost impossible to have a rational discussion on the matter without assumptions being made on both sides, and propaganda coming from both sides. Some pro-lifers seem to be intolerant, propaganda-spouting, non-thinking fundamentalists, unwilling to engage the opposition or acknowledge the points that they may have. For them, all pro-choicers are baby-killers and that’s all there is to it. Such close-mindedness doesn’t do anything for me, and those arguments played no part in my shift to a pro-life position. Some pro-choicers view the fetus as some form of parasite, and think that abortion is just another method of birth control, and until the baby is born, it’s an it. I never held that view, and I think that such a view is just as intolerant and unrealistic. I’ll grant that it’s hard to discuss something this touchy in a rational method, but if you as a pro-lifer are going to convince someone like me who was pro-choice, you have to come at it with a willingness to dialogue and answer questions from a non-partisan viewpoint. I was not proud to be pro-choice, but based on my view of free will, I felt that I had to respect the views of those who may not agree that life begins at birth, etc.

That brings me to my next point; Arguments on whether life begins at birth or not did not play a major role in changing my view. As a Christian, I am pre-disposed to believe that life does begin at birth…but I can’t force my view on someone else, especially when there is sufficient evidence that can be interpreted as saying life begins when the fetus is able to survive on its own or not, etc. Arguments along this line will eventually boil down to whether one is using a religious worldview or not, and while this can work from a moral perspective (abortion is wrong), I don’t think it can work from a legal worldview. “Abortion is wrong, therefore it should be illegal.” “Why is abortion wrong?” “The Bible says so.” “But I don’t believe in the Bible.” “Doesn’t matter, I’m still making it illegal.” There are valid arguments against this position that I could entertain, but the main point I want to make here is that this argument leads to much moralizing and less clarity from a legal standpoint, at least to me.

The argument that changed my mind was when I realized the existence of the Unborn Victims of Violence act. I post it below:
he operative portion of the law, now codified as Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code, reads as follows:
Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)). (3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

When I became aware of this act, and read it, I realized that the law itself had defined life as being at birth, from the bolded section in clause (d). Having established that, I immediately saw a disconnect between clause ( c) and (d). Why is it a crime for someone else to harm an unborn child at any stage of development, yet it is ok for the mother to do so? I cannot answer that question, so I conclude that if it’s a crime for the one, it should be a crime for the other.

That is what caused me to become pro-life. I am interested in hearing other’s positions trying to explain this conundrum, but I think that this is the best argument the pro-life side has to repeal/alter existing abortion laws.

What am I going to watch now??

It seems the days of good TV are numbered...

"The Wire" is over. "Battlestar Galactica" ends this coming Friday. "Lost" has a season and a half to go, but the writing is on the wall. "The Shield": powerful finale, gone for the ages. "Pushing Daisies": Gone before its time. "Chuck" is still around, but for how long? Old faves like "Dexter" and "24" are still on my radar, but I've only downloaded them, yet have not watched them yet. Is there no good TV left?


There is still hope, I guess. I've heard good things about "Mad Men", "Breaking Bad", "Sons of Anarchy" and some other ones that have popped up. I downloaded 'em, but haven't started to watch yet...time not being on my side. I got into "In Treatment" and can't wait for the second season, just as soon as I finish the first season.

I am going to miss those shows when they're gone though...here's to the new ones up-and-coming. Don't write for the masses, write for your own vision, eh?