On legislating “personhood”
Over at The Deeps of Time, there’s an interesting article that touches on the difficulties inherent in attempting to legally define the onset of human “personhood.” This distinction is, of course, what much of the abortion debate hinges on; it is beyond denial that the unborn are living human beings, so the killing thereof is justified instead on the grounds that prior to some point X, the unborn are not, legally speaking, human “persons” entitled to protection by and under the law.
But the article in question doesn’t focus on that aspect of the issue as much as it does on something that I am sure any number of pro-lifers — even the Catholic ones — don’t necessarily think about. Because really, if we are going to afford the unborn legal protection — especially from conception onward — simply prohibiting abortion would not satisfy such an ordinance. The abortafacient effect of some birth control methods (e.g. the Pill) would also have to be addressed, which is something too many in the pro-life movement overlook:
Like those who claim to be against abortion “except in case of rape or incest,” the ability of some “pro-lifers” to both defend the life of the unborn and yet be comfortable with contraception has puzzled me. If it’s the taking of a life when abortion is involved, it’s also the taking of a life when an abortifacient contraceptive is involved. This kind of hypocritical contradiction in the pro-life position seriously weakens our claim to be defending all life.
His irritation is justified. Only about 3% of American (and, presumably, Canadian) Catholics use natural family planning (or no family planning at all); the rest (apart from the celibate) use artificial methods. Condoms are bad enough; things like the Pill, which can have an abortafacient effect by preventing embryo implantation, are orders of magnitude worse.
And yet, many Catholics and other Christians, even ostensibly pro-life Christians, use such artificial birth control methods with nary a thought as to how that use ultimately contradicts their stated support of the rights and dignity of the unborn from the moment of conception.
And that is a hypocrisy, and then one which does real damage to the cause of protecting the unborn. Motes and logs, good reader…motes and logs.
