The right to life and choice

At the time of this posting, the Family Research Council was hosting the fourth-annual Blogs for Life event. Blogs for Life is the premier gathering to discuss online activism in the pro-life community. At www.frc.org they will have a live webcast of the event from 8:30-11:30 am featuring prominent pro-life voices such as Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), Amanda Carpenter, Jill Stanek, Danny Glover, Peter Shinn, Michael New, Ph.D, Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., Michael Illions, Chris Gacek, J.D. and Martha Shuping, M.D.

Recently I've had discussions with a couple of people about the right of a woman to choose vs. the right an unborn child has to it's life. In both discussions we agreed that a simple blanket statement of "Pro-Life" does not do justice to our points of view on the matter, though we would most likely be lumped together into this "Pro-Life" group. Certainly I believe life is very  precious and that the experiences we have in this life are extremely important to Gods plan for us; however, were does that right to life begin to interfere with the right of an individuals free agency?

Free agency is of course a whole other discussion, but I've always believed that ones rights stop when they starts to interfere with another's free agency. In other words, I can choose to do what I want so long as those choices do not have a significant impact on someone else's ability to choose for themselves. What this means for the life of an unborn person, is that the unborn do not have the right to threaten the life of their mother. Likewise, nobody should not be allowed to deny the unborn their right to life.  A life I believe each of us chose to embark on.

So who gets to decide what constitutes if the right of he women is more important, or if the life of the unborn is more important? We'll in most countries the law is very clear about killing someone. It usually cannot be done legally without some kind of a trial. Why should it be any different for the unborn? Certainly a full on trial isn't something a rape victim who is trying to put the ordeal behind them wants to endure, or someone with a life threatening complication has time for.

My suggestion is not a full on trial, but rather a certificate or acknowledgment, much like a warrant, signed by either a doctor or a judge that signifies the abortion is not simply for selfish reasons. Rather, that the abortion is being done because the life or livelihood of the woman is at significant risk.

Certainly I would hope that we could find better ways to deal with the things that lead up to these issues, such as exercising restraint, and not giving up on tomorrow for a little fun today. I would hope that we'd see sexual activities as something reserved from married couples who truly love each other; as apposed to a lustful and disrespectful recreational activity driven by hormonal passions that are often misunderstood as love. For those who mess up, I would hope they would take responsibility for their actions and consider alternatives, such as adoption, or even starting a family when possible.

- Posted by S.J. Hollist

No comments: