Choosing

 I hear often the argument that pro-lifers are attempting to force their beliefs on others. The implication is clear enough, they are speaking of Judeo-Christian values. The issue of abortion reduced to a moral question. I don't have an issue with that, it is a moral question. I don't believe you have to be a religious person to have morals, however. The right to life was stated clearly by the founding fathers. It wasn't a new idea, some new enlightenment. Quite the contrary as a matter of fact. Well before the birth of Christ civilizations had established laws regarding human rights. It was in 1951 when then Pope Pius XXII coined the term, right to life, that has become the motto of pro-life adherents. 

 So, I think the concept that being pro-life means you are promoting a religious precept is just wrong. Is the right to life based solely on religious doctrine? Is that the moral basis for that? Or is the right to life subject to litigation? If that is the case, we must remove any moral implications from the decision. As Sgt. Friday would say, "all we want are the facts, ma'am." And so, what are the facts? The facts are the same for each case but with a different set of circumstances. 

 Do we get to litigate the circumstances whereby an immoral act becomes a moral one? That is to say, it is wrong to take a life in one situation but fine in another? That's certainly what we all agree upon in the case of war, or if we are being attacked by another, in fear of losing our own life. Everyone agrees in the right to defend themselves, even those that insist they are pacifists. Very few throughout history have stood passively while their lives were taken. Even Martyrs attempted to save themselves in some fashion. They were Martyred when they failed in that attempt.

 Is morality determined by the society? Yes, it is. Morality is based in tradition, customs, and practices in a society. In short, what is accepted as moral and what is not. For centuries there were those that believed the practice of taking slaves, forcing them to do labor, was just fine. There was no issue with the morality of that. Slaves were simply the spoils of war. Didn't make any difference what race, creed or color you were. It was just business. In 1444 the Portuguese had their first public sale of African slaves. That was the beginning of that "trade" agreement between the Portuguese and African tribal leaders. In 1804 Haiti became the first country in the world to ban the practice of slavery! Yes, that's a historical fact. There are some nations that still allow the practice to this day. 

 My point being I think everyone agrees that slavery is an immoral practice. Are there any circumstances under which it is not? Apparently, some nations believe there are. Pakistan and India top the list of countries where slavery is still practiced, although technically illegal. Depends upon your definition of slavery. Slavery isn't solely the institution we know from America's past. It takes many forms. All forms are immoral, in my opinion. Is slavery a religious issue? Or is it solely a moral issue? Are those holding slaves attempting to force their religious beliefs upon others? I don't think I ever heard that argument being used. Anyone that was ever a slave would say it is an immoral and cruel act, whereas slave holders would have a different view of all that, insisting it is their right. Wars are fought over such. 

 Now those that are insisting they have an absolute right to kill the unborn child because they don't want a child, can't afford a child, or it was simply an accident, are certainly placing their personal wants over the life of another. Is that much different from taking slaves to perform the labor you don't want to do? To hold others in bondage for your own gain. Neither person gets to choose! No, you are making that choice for them. Do you really have a right to do that? What if you become someone I don't want, or I can no longer afford, do I get to kill you? Isn't that the same circumstance? What's different about it? If I chose that path, it is then called murder. Are there any circumstance where murder is just fine? I don't think so, it is even illegal in war! That's called crimes against humanity and prosecuted by every nation in the world today. 

 We can argue and present facts and evidence to support when life begins. That is the usual excuse I hear for taking that life. It's not really a life, not until the child is born. Well, even in the "old" days the courts were discussing all of this, and they called those first stirrings of life felt by the mother, "quickening." Given the science and understanding of just how the "miracle" of life begins, it is no wonder why that was chosen. Science has progressed and we now understand the complete process. In that understanding the fact remains, life begins the moment the egg is fertilized. Just as life begins when a seed is planted in the earth. If a farmer where to plant his entire field and the very next day I sprayed poison on that field wouldn't I be charged with destroying his crop? Wouldn't I be financially responsible for his loss? You could argue that the farmer has a right to destroy his crop. I won't dispute that, yes, he does. Thing is that a crop and a baby are quite different. Morally quite a different set of circumstances. A religious belief? No, a moral one. 

 Strange, isn't it? Those saying I am trying to force my belief upon them are upset because it is a moral choice. They insist they have an absolute right to kill another human being based upon their current circumstance. My insistence of preserving life is subject to circumstance. Those objecting to religious belief as a basis for morality are upset because it offends their sense of morality. Of course, they believe in God, in some form or another. but God doesn't mind if you kill other people, under certain circumstances. Oh, and I get to choose those circumstances.