EDITORIAL

(11/2/2006)

Rights: Whose Take Precedence?

The right to live, or the right to convenience?

By Bob Ellis

Editor

Looking beyond all the objections to South Dakota's abortion ban, Referred Law 6, what does the difference of opinion really come down to?

Many pro-abortion folks object to Referred Law 6 (HB1215) because it doesn't have an exception that allows a woman to abort her child if that child was conceived during a rape. While the trauma of rape cannot be understated, the number of abortions done for rape is around 1% nationally (1.8% in 2004 in South Dakota), and about 76% of women who become pregnant as a result of rape (about 1% of those who are raped will become pregnant). So in objecting to Referred Law 6 on the basis of a "rape exception," we are really trying to judge a "rule" based on a rare "exception." But I've dealt with this elsewhere, and it's not the focus of today's article.

What the difference of opinion on abortion really comes down to, between pro-abortion and pro-life folks, is rights.

Pro-abortion folks see the rights of the woman to be inviolate. In their view, nothing can supersede the right of the woman to her own body, her own goals, her own priorities, her own wishes. If she becomes pregnant with a child, she should be able to abort that child if the child interferes with her goal of furthering her education. If she becomes pregnant, she should be able to abort the child if the child interferes with her career goals. If she becomes pregnant with a child, she should be able to abort her child if the child interferes with her financial priorities of a bigger house, a new car, a savings or pension plan, or whatever the financial goal may be. If she becomes pregnant with a child and simply doesn't want to put up with a crying, poopy-diapered brat, she should be able to abort her child. If she becomes pregnant with a child and doesn't want the pregnancy to diminish her girlish figure, she should be able to abort her child. If she becomes pregnant and the child will jeopardize her relationship with her husband or boyfriend, she should be able to abort her child. In other words, if her child inconveniences her in any way, she should be able to abort her child because her rights take precedence.

If we were talking about a woman being able to get some plastic surgery and get a chin-tuck if her flabby chin interfered with her educational goals, I don't think anyone would hold that against her. If a woman felt a chin-tuck would further her career goals, no one is likely to condemn her for it. If a woman felt a chin-tuck would make her feel better about herself, again I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. After all, it's her body and society generally accepts that she has a right to do with it as she wishes, within reason (we do have laws against prostitution, drug abuse, etc.).

But the crux of the matter comes down to this: if a woman aborts her child, is she doing the equivalent of a "chin-tuck" in her womb, or is she infringing on the right to live of a separate and distinct human being?

Pro-life folks would answer unequivocally that she is not just getting rid of some of her own unwanted body tissue, but is interfering with the constitutionally protected right to life of a separate and distinct human being.

If we accept that an unborn child is a human life (and not just the Bible, but science also supports that contention--DNA which is completely unique from the mother's, a beating heart at 22 days development, etc.), then that human being should deserve the protections afforded to all people by our Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution says in the preamble that it was established to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Our posterity is our descendants, our offspring. Further, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says no one will "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." If we accept that an unborn child is a human life (again, both the Bible and science support that it is), then the child has a right to life and a right to protection of his or her life under our highest law...and to abort that child is a violation of that protection and of the highest law of our land.

Is there a time in our human development when we should not be afforded the right to life? Some so-called bioethicists like Peter Sanger claim you should be able to kill your child until the child is about 2 years old...but even most pro-abortion folks aren't going to go that far. Some people believe we should be able to kill the elderly when they become sick or otherwise become a drain on private or societal resources. Who's up for killing Grandma? Not too many folks would support that, either.

But at what stage of prenatal development does the child deserve the protections all other human beings deserve? When does the child stop being considered "part of the mother's body" that she can do with whatever she wishes, and become considered a unique human being which deserves protection of its own?

Since we are unable to see when the soul enters the human body (and most people believe human beings have a soul, regardless of their religious affiliation), when does it make the most sense to designate as the time when protection for the right to life begins? Should it be at the beginning of the second trimester, and if so, is that because of some specific change that occurs at that point, or simply because the trimester delineation satisfies our predisposition to break things down into segments that are easy to grasp?

Or does it make more sense to designate the time of recognition as a unique human being--and with it, constitutional and legal protection--as beginning at the time when the child has DNA (the basic building block of all life) that is separate and unique from its mother?

If we agree that it makes the most sense to recognize that a unique human life exists at the point when it possesses the DNA which distinguishes it from every other human being in the world, then we must accept that the child deserves the protection of the right to life at conception, which is the point when it first becomes completely different and unique from both its father and mother. At this point of conception, it deserves the most basic of rights, the right to LIVE.

If we think about it, we would all agree that rights have limits. Typically we express this understanding with the statement that our rights extend unfettered only until they start to touch on another's rights. As Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke point out in their book, "Why Can't We Love Them Both,"

I have a right to swing my fist, but that right stops at your nose. We have the right to freedom of speech, but not to shout "fire" in a theater. We have a right to freedom of religion, but not if that religion involves human sacrifice.

I have the right to drive through an intersection...but only if the traffic light/sign indicates I'm authorized to do so. I have a right to drive through a "Yield" sign...as long as another car with the right-of-way isn't coming. Why do I face this restriction? Because the right of the other party supersedes mine. If I fail to respect that their right supersedes mine, both of us will likely end up paying a price.

So I ask you which right should supersede the other: the right to pursue educational goals, or the right to LIVE? Does the right to a relationship with a hot boyfriend supersede the right of the child to LIVE? Does the right to a more fulfilling career supersede the right of her child to LIVE?

If these questions involved a 5-year-old child who was interfering with a mother's plans for higher education, career plans, financial goals, or other pursuits, would we even entertain the notion that she might have the right to abort this 5-year-old child? If we wouldn't entertain that notion, why would we entertain the notion that she has a right to supersede the right to live of her 2-month old child? After all, if it is a separate and unique human being at conception, does the fact that we don't have to look it in the face as we kill it in the womb somehow make it more palatable than having to look it in the face if we kill it as a 5-year-old?

When we fail to accept that the right of an unborn child to LIVE supersedes any right which is lesser than life that we may cherish, we commit a moral crime. Does it not follow that the wrongful taking of life should also be recognized as a legal crime? Failure to do so subjects the child to death, and the mother to a lifetime of regret, as thousands of women who testified and provided affidavits to the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion have demonstrated.

So what right takes precedence: the important priorities we face in life, or life itself?