Last week, I suggested the Po-Life argument makes me feel I am engaged in an abstract, academic, moral dissertation rather than an attempt to solve a real-life human problem. I find resorting to moral absolutes represents Kant more than Jesus. And I wince whenever advocates preclude intelligent conversation by claiming it leads to an inevitable “slide down a slippery slope.”
For instance, the argument says that a genuine ethical position never weighs one person against another. We certainly will not do that in the future Kingdom of God, but in our present world, we do it all the time.
In a modern technological society, we constantly give those with special knowledge and skill more value than others in resolving particular problems. The epitome is when doctors were chosen to depart in the lifeboats at the sinking of the Titanic so they would be available to care for the women and children. However, we make the same kind of decision in many little ways every day.
Certainly, a child after birth can be regarded as of more value than a fetus simply because he or she is far more engaged in social relationships. And if saving the life of the mother or the child during a dangerous pregnancy is necessary, giving the mother priority makes sense as she already has responsibilities.
I am also bothered that the very people who, in one moment, insist they are taking the higher ground with abstract arguments, in the next moment, engage in nasty accusations and name-calling. In the conclusion of the article I critiqued last week, Robert Jenson said he wanted to drop cool analysis and reveal his passion. He then accused the Pro-Life movement of being an “eruption from hell” itself.
He felt justified in doing this because he regarded the claim, “My body, my decision,” as an assault on the foundations of humanity by regarding the fetus as the mother’s property. As much as feminism moaned about the father considering his wife and children his property, it now grants this right to the mother regarding her children.
Remember, Jenson claimed the mother should be the last to decide to abort because she is in no way a disinterested party. I think women are claiming the right because there are no disinterested agents in the current situation. It makes good sense to give the pregnant woman more say because she is the one who has to pay the price. She takes on the responsibility for her decision. To deny her the decision means nobody takes responsibility, and doing nothing is hardly laudable.
