Conor J Rogers, Political Editor
During his highly publicized commencement speech to Notre Dame, Obama pleaded that we must find common ground on abortion, and pointed out that both the pro-life movement and the pro-choice movement care equally about women.
Mr. President, it isn’t about the woman, it’s about the child.
This is not even to point out that it’s impossible to find common ground between a group that wants a child to be born, and a group that wants to stop that from happening. But, as pro-lifers growing up in the first generation to be able to see our brothers and sisters on ultrasound before they were even born, our fellow ‘millennials’ are more pro-life than any group of young people since Roe v Wade – and for us pro-lifers, it’s not that we both care equally about women – we do, it’s that we see the right to be born as tantamount, and indeed the gateway to all other rights. We care for that mother just as much as the pro-choice advocates do, but unlike those pro-choice advocates, we see the depression, anxiety and health risks she will face from an abortion. We care for that woman and we insist that she bring the blessing to the world that is her child, into life. We do not seek to control women’s lives as Obama and pro-choice advocates might accuse.
Rather, we seek something fundamentally opposite; we wish to unleash the potential of each and every human life upon our world. Hardly exercising control, we want each and every child to have the potential to become President of the United States, a scientist, an inventor, or simply a mother or a father. To play on words, we are pro-choice, we believe that each and every human life should be able to choose the course of their own life, not have it cut short only months before they are to be born and yet to have their first breath. This is what we fight for, not to control young girls, or dictate women’s careers but rather to set life free.
Yet now, we see a President, who was raised by a single mother on government aid and living paycheck to paycheck and considered aborting her son, advocating the right of a mother to just do that. Should Ann Dunham have gotten an abortion, Barack Obama would not be President, and he simply would not exist.
Perhaps this is the best way for liberals to understand just exactly what this ‘choice’ that you advocate is, it’s a future, a child and it could be anything from just a loving mother, to President of the United States.
just wanted to point out your first sentence is false “This is not even to point out that it’s impossible to find common ground between a group that wants a child to be born, and a group that wants to stop that from happening” Pro-choice individuals do not try and stop children from being born as you put we simply leave that choice and right up to each individual woman. For example I am against abortion as a christian, but as a christian I do not feel it is my place to force my believes onto a nation of individuals who are diverse in the way they believe, it is not right to force people to live the way you feel they should live, and it is not right to make laws that force people to follow your values if they do not share these same values!
Dustin,
There is a difference between diversity of ideas, and basic rights. I believe that the right to be born and live is tantamount to other rights. For the same reason, I oppose the death penalty, and think it is okay to ban murder.
You said “it is not right to force people to live the way you feel they should live…” I explicitly stated in my post that this was not about telling the woman how she should live – it is almost always her choice that led her to become pregnant – but rather that we cannot deny innocent children a chance at life.
Great point Conor. Though our nation is founded upon the ideal of liberty for all, those that support pro-choice believe that this “all” does not include our unborn brothers and sisters. I beg of them to answer the question, when does life begin?
May I attempt to direct you with this question, if we found even a single bacteria cell on Mars, do you not agree that the scientific community would recognize this as life? In the same way, I think we must all come to realize that the from the moment of conception, human life exists. If we are indeed a nation founded upon liberty for all human life, I ask you all to recognize the right to life for the human life that she has come to bear in the miracle of conception.
The entire premise here is the issue of when “life” begins. There is quite simply zero scientific evidence that life starts at conceptions — almost all of it points to after 12 weeks (i.e. after the first trimester).
Matt, I could not agree with you more. If a single, one-celled zygote were to be found on the Moon, scientists everywhere would be weeping with joy that human life had been found outside of Earth. Yet the same zygote on Earth is not considered alive.
Noah – would you argue then, since in your opinion life starts after the first trimester, that abortions should be illegal after 12 weeks?
Matt, I could not agree with you more. If a single, one-celled zygote were to be found on the Moon, scientists everywhere would be weeping with joy that human life had been found outside of Earth. Yet the same zygote on Earth is not considered alive.
Noah – would you argue then, since in your opinion life starts after the first trimester, that abortions should be illegal after 12 weeks?
Matt, I could not agree with you more. If a single, one-celled zygote were to be found on the Moon, scientists everywhere would be weeping with joy that life had been found outside of Earth. Yet the same zygote on Earth is not considered alive.
Noah – would you argue then, since in your opinion life starts after the first trimester, that abortions should be illegal after 12 weeks?
Except to protect the life of the mother, where a positive defense would be acceptable: self-defense.
I’m sorry, I meant affirmative defense.