Special to AIPNews.com

October 15, 2009

Dan Hawkins

Yesterday, I came across an article about an Alabama gubernatorial candidate named Robert Bentley who is proposing an amendment to the state constitution that would make causing or participating in an abortion a crime. Under his proposal, abortions of pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest would be allowed. Abortions would also be allowed in cases where the pregnancy threatened the life of the mother.

Bentley says that he cares “about the life of unborn children. We need people who will stand up for unborn children in this country.'' While I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, it is unfortunate that Mr. Bentley has fallen into the fatal flaw of the popular Pro-Life movement.

Those who are in favor of legalized abortion in this country call themselves pro-choice, the choice being that of the mother. They purport to be for women’s rights, and for their cause to succeed, the abortion debate needs to revolve around the mother. Everything they do and say is toward focusing on the pregnant woman while dehumanizing the child growing inside her.

For the Pro-Life argument to make any logical sense, the debate needs to be focused on the rights of the child. Is the developing child a person? Does the developing child have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or is the child simply the property of the mother? The pro-abortion mantra (I frankly refuse to call them pro-choice), “Not in favor of Abortion? Then don’t have one,” takes absolutely no consideration of the rights of the child. That mantra might be countered in this manner: “Not in favor of slavery? Then don’t own slaves.” This second mantra dehumanizes those being enslaved just like the pro-abortion slogan dehumanizes unborn babies. The slogans make non-entities out of them.

The Pro-Life argument should be that all human beings are persons, from conception all the way through natural death, and that each person has the inalienable (or God-given) right to life. So why do so many think that a person’s rights can be denied simply because of the circumstances of that person’s conception? If unborn children are persons with the right to life, then the child conceived as the result of an act of rape or incest has as much claim to the right to life as any other child conceived under consensual circumstances. Why should that child’s right to life be denied?

Some will say that a woman shouldn’t have to bear a child for nine months after the trauma of being raped. Those in the pro-abortion camp would applaud such a statement because it puts the focus of the debate right back on the woman. If the child conceived by rape can be killed at will, then why can’t the child conceived by young lovers in the back seat of some teenager’s car? If the child conceived by rape is not really a person, then why are other unborn children regarded as persons? The answer has to be that the child conceived by rape is, indeed, a person.

A person cannot be denied the right to life without due legal process. And what would be the due legal process in these exceptions to the abortion ban as proposed by Candidate Bentley? What crime has this unborn child committed? He or she was conceived by an act of rape or incest? De we, as a society, punish children for the crimes of their parents? Of course, we don’t. And yet, this is exactly the position that Candidate Bentley and so many other “Pro-Life” candidates take when they advocate these exceptions for rape or incest.

The other exception in Bentley’s proposal would allow abortions in cases where the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother. I would argue that every pregnancy endangers the life of the mother to some degree, and yet so many women face that danger anyway. Thankfully, modern medicine has reduced the risk in the overwhelming majority of cases.

I have two children, and my wife went through all kinds of problems with high blood pressure during both pregnancies. Both children were delivered via Cesarean section before their due dates. Our oldest was taken a full four weeks before he was due to be delivered. Fortunately, our children were extremely healthy at birth and have continued to be healthy.

If a woman’s medical conditions dictate that a pregnancy be terminated, then the procedure undertaken to terminate such pregnancy does not need to be one that intentionally kills the baby. If a baby is not developed enough to survive outside the womb after such a procedure, than that loss of life is certainly regrettable. But if the effort was made in order to preserve the mother’s life, then such a procedure could hardly be categorized as an elective abortion.

Many pro-abortion politicians (especially Barack Obama) have voted against bills restricting the most heinous of abortion procedures because exceptions weren’t made “for the health of the mother.” But the “health of the mother” can mean almost anything, from mental and psychological health to non-life threatening medical conditions. Babies, after they are born, are totally dependent on their mothers. Do we excuse women from killing their babies because of their medical conditions? We don’t, nor should we excuse them from killing their babies before they are born if those pre-born babies have that right to life.

The Pro-Life position should be one that advocates for the personhood of children in the womb. When we start allowing exceptions based on the “rights” of the mother, we lose the argument. Politicians cite these exceptions in order to get votes, but they betray the principles of life when they do. I will no longer support politicians who compromise on those principles.