The pro-abortion lobby thrives on rhetoric which claims in no uncertain terms a preborn child is valueless and insignificant. “It’s just a clump of cells,” they say. Indeed, the crux of the pro-abortion argument is abortion itself is no more substantial than a tonsillectomy. It is a procedure which removes unwanted or unnecessary tissue. It is that simple. No need to think twice about it.
The ethics of abortion are entirely dependent on the fetus’ personhood, or lack thereof. If the preborn child possesses personhood, thus value and inalienable rights, its destruction is definitively immoral. If it is simply a growth of tissue with no perceivable value, it can be discarded with no moral consequence. To the honest folks on both sides of this conversation, it is clear this is precisely where the disagreement lies.
Unfortunately, given the often tragic circumstances associated with abortion, it can take great courage to outwardly recognize that core dispute. Many hope to appease both those who have been personally affected by abortion, as well as those who make a strong, rational case for its unethical nature.
In doing so, they produce a statement which goes something like this: “I am personally against abortion, but I think it should be legal.”
Just last year, Fox News pundit Tomi Lahren joined the ranks of “pro-choice Conservatives” (a term I find to be oxymoronic) when she explained her support of Roe v. Wade by stating, “I’m saying this as someone who would personally choose life, but also feels it’s not the government’s place to dictate.”
Lahren is not alone. Through a wave of criticism, she found notable support across the political divide, and it’s no surprise why. The position which is most attractive to the fearful is one that reinforces the legitimacy of both sides. In other words, when you do not want to fight, you play the fence – and a great number of people do not want to fight.
The primary issue with the “personally against abortion” crowd, among many others, is the position is not only illogical, but uniquely reprehensible. Remember, the pro-abortion lobby relies on the claim that a preborn child is a valueless, parasitic mass. While this is certainly intellectually dishonest, it is a view which is necessary to maintain any sort of moral standing when advocating for the fetus’ destruction. If abortion does not involve the termination of a human life, it is of no ethical consequence.
Of course, once one explains that they are “personally against abortion,” they are acknowledging it does come with an ethical consequence. Why would they claim to be against abortion if they did not see the preborn child as valuable? Why would they “personally choose life” if they truly believed that the procedure simply resulted in the removal of insignificant tissue, while simultaneously alleviating them of all their responsibilities?
Lahren, and the many others who share her opinion, are openly admitting they recognize the value and personhood of the preborn, while also advocating for their legal slaughter. I contend this is among the most shallow, disgusting, and horrid political viewpoints in existence today, and yet it is cloaked in reason and compassion.
Perhaps ironically, both the pro-life and pro-choice movements ought to be able to agree on this. Either you believe a preborn child is valuable and ought to be protected, or you believe it’s valueless and can be discarded. Anything in between is akin to consciously supporting the murder of a human child.
It is time that we all reject this absurdity.
No, You Can’t Be “Pro-Choice” And Personally Against Abortion
Scott Neumann
Wyoming Becomes First State to Take a Stand and Ban Abortion Pills
URGENT REGISTRY: Mom Due Soon, Has Next to Nothing for Baby
URGENT REGISTRY: Family lost everything, need helping hand
The Objective Morality of Transcendent Experience Part 2
The Objective Morality of Transcendent Experience Part 1
The pro-abortion lobby thrives on rhetoric which claims in no uncertain terms a preborn child is valueless and insignificant. “It’s just a clump of cells,” they say. Indeed, the crux of the pro-abortion argument is abortion itself is no more substantial than a tonsillectomy. It is a procedure which removes unwanted or unnecessary tissue. It is that simple. No need to think twice about it.
The ethics of abortion are entirely dependent on the fetus’ personhood, or lack thereof. If the preborn child possesses personhood, thus value and inalienable rights, its destruction is definitively immoral. If it is simply a growth of tissue with no perceivable value, it can be discarded with no moral consequence. To the honest folks on both sides of this conversation, it is clear this is precisely where the disagreement lies.
Unfortunately, given the often tragic circumstances associated with abortion, it can take great courage to outwardly recognize that core dispute. Many hope to appease both those who have been personally affected by abortion, as well as those who make a strong, rational case for its unethical nature.
In doing so, they produce a statement which goes something like this: “I am personally against abortion, but I think it should be legal.”
Just last year, Fox News pundit Tomi Lahren joined the ranks of “pro-choice Conservatives” (a term I find to be oxymoronic) when she explained her support of Roe v. Wade by stating, “I’m saying this as someone who would personally choose life, but also feels it’s not the government’s place to dictate.”
Lahren is not alone. Through a wave of criticism, she found notable support across the political divide, and it’s no surprise why. The position which is most attractive to the fearful is one that reinforces the legitimacy of both sides. In other words, when you do not want to fight, you play the fence – and a great number of people do not want to fight.
The primary issue with the “personally against abortion” crowd, among many others, is the position is not only illogical, but uniquely reprehensible. Remember, the pro-abortion lobby relies on the claim that a preborn child is a valueless, parasitic mass. While this is certainly intellectually dishonest, it is a view which is necessary to maintain any sort of moral standing when advocating for the fetus’ destruction. If abortion does not involve the termination of a human life, it is of no ethical consequence.
Of course, once one explains that they are “personally against abortion,” they are acknowledging it does come with an ethical consequence. Why would they claim to be against abortion if they did not see the preborn child as valuable? Why would they “personally choose life” if they truly believed that the procedure simply resulted in the removal of insignificant tissue, while simultaneously alleviating them of all their responsibilities?
Lahren, and the many others who share her opinion, are openly admitting they recognize the value and personhood of the preborn, while also advocating for their legal slaughter. I contend this is among the most shallow, disgusting, and horrid political viewpoints in existence today, and yet it is cloaked in reason and compassion.
Perhaps ironically, both the pro-life and pro-choice movements ought to be able to agree on this. Either you believe a preborn child is valuable and ought to be protected, or you believe it’s valueless and can be discarded. Anything in between is akin to consciously supporting the murder of a human child.
It is time that we all reject this absurdity.
Scott Neumann
The views and opinions expressed in these articles are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Human Defense Initiative.
Scott Neumann
COMMENTARY
NATIONAL
INTERNATIONAL
Wyoming Becomes First State to Take a Stand and Ban Abortion Pills
URGENT REGISTRY: Mom Due Soon, Has Next to Nothing for Baby
URGENT REGISTRY: Family lost everything, need helping hand
The Objective Morality of Transcendent Experience Part 2
The Objective Morality of Transcendent Experience Part 1
URGENT NEED: Keep Mom and Baby Together