To most Americans, being a pro-life Democrat is an oxymoron. Such sentiments are not only factually incorrect (as the Democratic party is not defined by its stance on abortion), but also unfortunate. Although I am still hesitant to label myself a Democrat, I remain a staunch supporter of President Obama as well as most Democratic policies. 

Before I begin, I wish to make a few things clear - I seek to prove that abortion is first a scientific issue, and second a philosophical issue; all other aspects of freedom, faith, etc., although important, unnecessarily complicate the issue. I also will oppose abortion outside of the cases of rape, incest, and physical harm to the mother, which accounts for only 7% of abortions. Lastly, I want to say as emphatically as possible that my argument in these articles do not oppose abortion  based on religious faith. Although there is a place for such beliefs, to impose them on others is impractical if not wrong. Do you really want the government interpreting the Bible for you and then legislating accordingly? If the Bible is the only source to prove that life begins at conception, then those who are non-religious will never be persuaded. Consequently, my opinion is based on philosophy and science alone.

Lastly, I want to quickly clarify the stances of those of who are “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. These terms are somewhat deceiving, especially since they aren’t necessarily opposing. Pro-lifers generally believe that the fetus is “alive”, and thus precedence ought to be given to their inalienable right to live, even though they still believe a mother has the right to a certain amount of choice/liberty. However, Pro-choicers generally do not believe that the fetus is “alive”, and thus believe that precedence ought to be given to the mothers freedom of choice and privacy, even though they still largely believe in the sanctity of life (perhaps Pro-Fetus Not Alive would be a more accurate, though less catchy). Consequently, as I seek to prove, the beginning of “life” is the unitary foundation of the abortion debate.

So the question is: Why oppose abortion? For all intents and purposes, referring to a fetus as being “alive”, will from now on include “personhood”, a “soul”, as well as the inalienable rights therein.

First, do you believe a fetus is “alive” once viable? If no, then I must ask you, why not? Viability is defined as the stage at which there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman. Thus, once outside the mother, one could never argue the baby is not “alive”. If a baby is viable, one must either argue that technology can give “life” to a viable fetus (thus giving “life” later than viability), or that the fetus was already “alive”. However, it seems silly to think that “life” can be given by technology, not to mention that no scientific nor philosophical proof can be given to such a claim.

Furthermore, does the physical act of childbirth somehow give “life”? One would be hard-pressed to prove or even support such a conclusion. To say a child 5 seconds before being born was not “alive” seems once again quite silly, its only logical that a baby’s being “alive” has more to do with the baby itself rather than the mother or where the baby resides. As a result, since the human aspect of a baby (their brain, heart, lung, etc. development) is virtually the same inside the womb as it is seconds after birth, to draw the line of “life” at birth is simply arbitrary. The truth is, you have no idea when the baby became “alive”.

Second, the time of viability continues to be pushed forward (closer to the time of conception) as technology develops. Since I am neither a scientist nor technician, I cannot definitively say whether this will continue, I can only argue that a true and unmoving time of viability is unlikely to ever be found, especially not anytime soon. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor made this very point back in 1983 in her opinion on Roe V. Wade where she said that the case was “in a collision course with itself”. Consequently, one must either draw a philosophically arbitrary line (I call this “arbitrary” only because it defines viability by the constraints of current technology, which may evolve as they already have), or admit that a true universal understanding of viability still remains unknown.

If you’re willing to admit that a fetus is “alive” once viable, and that the true universal time of viability is unknown, then the only question that remains is whether you’re willing to take the risk of possibly authorizing murder (I realize “murder” may offend some, however its important we not judge others as “murderers” since currently we have no evidence to prove such claims). Furthermore, this is not a personal question, but a federal question. Should the United State, by law, take the risk of facilitating murder as a whole? I would argue no. Some of you may disagree, but I personally believe that such monumental decisions of life and death ought not to be left up to chance. The insecurity is too great. On these immortal questions, one, especially the state, should always err on the side of caution, and in this case “life”.
 

This is the crux of my argument. However, for those of you believe some questions have gone unanswered, or wish to read more, I encourage you to read my next post -  #2 Abortion Fallacies: Bad Arguments You Hear Everyday.

Also, if you’re interested in the issue of President Obama and his views on abortion and BAIPA, I would recommend you read: A Pro-Life Defense of Obama on Abortion.