It is logically possible for there to be a pro-life liberal [1], but the variant of liberalism often encountered in contemporary America is very much explicitly pro-choice. Going beyond insisting logically and scientifically that a fetus (or zygote or blastocyst or embryo) is not or is probably not just a human at an early stage of development, modern American liberals I have been exposed to now tend to dismiss the humanity of an unborn baby altogether as if it is irrelevant. Rather, they focus almost exclusively on the supposed pro-choice bent of feminism or gender egalitarianism, the bodily autonomy of the pregnant woman, personal convenience, or the existential weight of bringing a child into a world of suffering. The metaphysics of when the "clump of cells" becomes human, as if that would not also be what those outside the womb are on a physical level, or whether it is human from the start are commonly disregarded.
Ironically, they might think themselves egalitarian or feminist for prioritizing those outside the womb over those in it, not that doing the opposite is rational or just either [2]. They also might not even realize that if it is a human in the womb, and its presence does not endanger the mother's literal ability to survive [3], then if humans have a right to bodily autonomy as long as they do not commit something immoral, so would people in the womb as well as their mothers. A moral right to bodily autonomy, within fixed parameters since it could never be true that anyone has the right to do something irrational or evil, would contradict pro-choice philosophy. True feminism is just egalitarianism no matter what some conservatives and liberals think, and egalitarianism would apply to humans in the womb [4] if they are indeed people (which is not particularly the focus of pro-choice liberals as it is).
Regarding other motivations, convenience does not nullify moral obligations, if there is such a thing as morality and an obligation to not kill on a personal whim more specifically, so the convenience of aborting a baby would be irrelevant one way or another. Of course, if morality does not exist, which cannot be proven or disproven, then it is neither true that the unborn have a right to live except in cases where the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy (while this presents a choice where either option is Biblically permissible, the phrase pro-choice often refers to this decision being permissible for all pregnancies) nor true that women have a right to decide to continue carrying a baby or not. This is something conservatives and liberals alike largely neglect if not completely, and both just assume that personal and therefore subjective conscience or some selective social norm somehow demonstrates that whatever they endorse is objectively good.
Still, instead of what conservatives I interacted with might have expected a decade or more ago—that pro-choice adherents or the left-leaning would be skeptical of or against the notion that the unborn are human, or are people for the entirety of their development in the womb—plenty of liberals of today simply do not appear to have any overt ideological or personal care for whether the unborn are people. It is the mother's wishes and convenience that they prioritize. Murder being immoral would not necessitate that a mother has an obligation to sacrifice her life for her child if it comes down to it, but killing a living thing, a human at an earlier stage of development although it might look different and is confined to one location, is not trivialized or made legitimate because of emotion, preference, or the utilitarian simplification of life circumstances.
[2]. A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/07/abortion-in-cases-of-life-threatening.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-exception-to-abortions-immorality.html
No comments:
Post a Comment