Abortion is a very serious issue in our time. To my knowledge, it may be the greatest moral atrocity of our time. I think that few, if any other, evils have had such a widespread and devastating consequence on human life. If we take the position that the baby in the womb is a true human life, just as human with inherent dignity and worth, as the mother who carries the baby, abortion can have no just defense. It is truly evil, and it is one of the greatest shortcoming of America and the western world that such an atrocity to the image of God has become so widespread and normalized. As of the time I am writing this, the World Health Organization estimates that approximately "73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year." That is larger than the number of human beings that die outside the womb each year. The World Health Organization estimated "68 million deaths worldwide" in the year 2021. Clearly they erroneously did not count the humans that died in the womb in that number. This is an absolutely shocking statistic. The number of humans killed in the womb is greater than the number of humans who die outside the womb. Why, why would such an evil be so accepted and so widely practiced in the 21st century? Do we not call our selves better than our brutish ancestors who committed levels of evil, in our eyes, we can not fathom ourselves ever committing?
I think it is the lack of diligence among our ancestors and the people of our society today that is to blame. I believe that so many of us have failed to live our lives with intention and diligent thought. We live in a "monkey see, monkey do" culture, where we mimic what we see without diligent thought of what exactly it is that we do in each decision of our life. There is something in valuing tradition and following the example of those around you. Many times traditions and practices preserved from one generation to the next are good and virtuous. However, it is also possible for an evil, heinous practice to be passed down to the next generation. When a given culture with unique practices is passed down, the inheritors of that culture have two options: They can pursue a comfortable, effortless way of life. They can accept the practices of the culture blindly without much thought or scrutiny. Or they can pursue a very difficult way of living. They can question and think rigorously of why a given practice should be preserved and have agency over the destiny of their society. Given that a culture in a society is flawed, it is only a culture that contains individuals that choose the latter way of life, that will have the opportunity to improve and grow closer to a society of greater virtue. During the early years of America's founding, one of the greatest moral atrocities of the time was slavery. Many people supported slavery. In fact slavery has been widespread through much of human history. But without people in the time of America's founding (and the generations after leading to the abolition) who took the time to think and question the practice of slavery, slavery would never have been abolished. Although diligent intention and thought in our lives is difficult, all virtuous members of society have a moral duty to complete this work of diligent thought to ensure the betterment of society toward virtue. Or else, we would be damned to a morally stagnant society, and be vulnerable to the forces of evil that would lead our society to decay. No human can live a life with perfect diligence, but we have a duty to strive to practice it in our lives. Even some of the most virtuous and diligent in thought fail to live up to these ideals, but it is a duty for us to continue anyway, correcting ourselves and those around us, to build each other up toward a clearer and more virtuous society.
Today, I will choose to try and correct one of the most influential conservative commentators of the decade: Ben Shapiro. In episode 698 of the Ben Shapiro Show, Ben Shapiro states at 25:43 "Virtually everyone who is pro-life agrees with the idea that if the life of the mother is in danger, then abortion can be considered." The implication of this statement from Shapiro seems to be that abortion should be considered and even just if the mother's life is in danger, even if it costs the baby's life. But I believe this idea fails the same way that all other pro-abortion ideas fail. In this statement, I believe that Shapiro is not saying that when we have the option to save the pregnant mother vs saving no one, we should choose to save the mother (since the baby may have no chance of living at all). That idea would require no statement at all. What Shapiro is stating here is that when we have the option to save the mother or save the baby, it is morally acceptable to consider saving the mother's life over the life of the baby in the womb. But I believe this idea is incompatible with the foundation premise that a baby in the womb has just as much moral worth and value as the mother carrying the baby. In fact, I believe the mother would have a duty to sacrifice her life if it means saving the life of the baby. I believe I heard Matt Walsh, another major conservative commentator, state this example first, so I would like to give credit to him first, but he gave the example of a parent finding their child in a burning building (I do not recall if he was using this example for the debate of abortion, but I think this hypothetical would illustrate this moral dilemma well.) The parent has two options, she can stay outside, which would result in her life being saved and ending the life of her child. Or she can run into the burning house and save her child, but she will lose her life. As a mother and parent, she has a moral obligation to sacrifice her life to save her child. In fact, I personally believe if I was in this situation, even if running into the building would sacrifice my life for just a 50% chance to save my child, I believe it would be moral for me to go into the burning house to try to save my child at the cost of my life. Now the fact of whether I would muster the moral courage to do this in real life is one question, but I believe the moral thing for me to do would be to sacrifice my life for the life of my child. (This is of course considering that there are no other more prudent options like a fireman available near by with the necessary training and gear to save both our lives.)
Let us consider the example of the titanic. The men, women, and children on the titanic were all human beings of equal worth and value. However, they were not all chosen to be saved equally. The women and children were given the life boats first (hopefully). Although the man is equal in human value to the woman and child, he has a sacred duty to sacrifice his life to save the life of his wife and child in the face of danger. The woman similarly would have the responsibility to sacrifice her life to save her child. Now, perhaps, if the woman decided to take the lifeboat spot instead and kick her child off, she would have a higher chance of surviving on the life boat. (She has a larger body that can retain heat for longer and go a greater amount of time without food or water.) However, she sacrifices her own life, guaranteeing her death on the sinking titanic anyway, to save her child even if it is not certain whether her baby will actually live. One could make the same argument about men. Perhaps the men should have kicked off the women and drowned them so that the men can take the place of the woman. The men are stronger and more likely to survive the harsh conditions and the children in the boat would have a higher chance of having a surviving parent to care for them if the men took all the spots of the women. But even if the men taking the spots would ensure greater human survival, it would still be unjust. The men have a God given sacred duty to protect and provide for their wives and children. I believe that a similar situation happens in abortion when the life of the mother "is at risk." Perhaps it might be able to be debated what percent chance of the baby's survival is worth sacrificing the life of the mother, but I do believe when one is given two clear options, save the baby's life or save the mother's life, the mother would have a moral obligation to sacrifice her life to save the life of her baby child, even if it may be uncertain whether her child will survive, just as she would give the last spot on the lifeboat to her child. I believe that if we all think more diligently about what we believe, we will find that abortion is unjust even when the life of the mother may be at risk, allowing us to see more clearly and be more discerning of good and evil in our culture.
Comments
Post a Comment