Why are we Pro-Life?
Perhaps the two most "extreme" positions in the Free Republican Movement are our positions on right to life and capital punishment. In the next two days, I intend to lay out our rationale for these positions. We understand that both are controversial, and perhaps pur party would be considerably more popular, and perhaps even more successful, if we dropped these planks and replaced them with a conscience clause. Far more popular, but less in line with what our heritage demands of us.
First, let me say that our party firmly states as one of our key principles that we are an inclusive party. No one has to accept every one of our principles to be a member of the FR. They merely have to be content to find the whole of the party's principles satisfactory. Secondly, the social agenda is, avowedly, the area where we are probably the most conservative. In market economics, we are pragmatic free marketers. In military matters, we demand economy as well as strength. In environmental matters, we are almost as left as any party in Eutopia, because of the current state of our environment. Though here we are thinking of ways to work within the free market system as well. So in all other matters, we are very nearly "raging centrists," with a slight tip to the right overall. And a few have said, "if it weren't for..." I'd join your party. My reply is, that ultimately, we are inclusive, but we can't include everyone.
We are Pro-Life, not anti-choice. We firmly believe that a woman has the choice not to be pregnant. We beleive that choice needs to be made before she engages in the activity that makes her pregnant. But at the moment of conception, all medical data points to a new life. The DNA is imprinted at moment one, and it is distinct from the parent's. Is that life dependant on the mother? Yes. Is it the mother's body? No. It's the baby's body that is aborted.
Also, the abortion industry (and yes, outside EUtopia, it is an industry), has made it a mission to squelch the information we have on the phychological trauma that these mothers, who were told they did not have a baby, go through after they act on the misinformation. We do not seek to make criminals out of mothers who are confused by lies told to them. We would make criminals of the industry that deludes them, however. Not only this, but part of the abortion industry's claim to legalization is it would be "safer" this way. Safer is a relative term. Aside from the fact that it certainly won't be safer for babies, the industry also does a very good job of hiding the fact that many abortion mills have horrific records when it comes to inadvertant sterilization of mothers, infection, and other proofs that they simply lack basic health concerns.
We are not here to make Solomon's choice. And thus we refuse to allow a mother to die when this procedure might save her life. We are not here to force trauma upon trauma. Thus we do not stand against abortion in the case of rape. Though we would add that we do not encourage it in this case. Many would-be parents could provide love to such a child, even if the mother could not. The issue is aborton for convenience. To that we say it is just as wrong to stand by and allow one to die without just cause as it is to do the killing oneself.
To elevate convenience over justice is to slaughter our conscience for the sake of comfort. One might say, "Yes, its a wrong choice, or so I personally think, but it's hers to make." Is it? A free society does not mean that we have to wait until before one makes a destructive act before we intervene. We try to stop murder, robbery, assault, etc, before they happen. Why is it wrong to stop abortion before it happens if it is a morally wrong choice?
And is it wrong to legislate morality? No. All law is moral law. Every law is passed because one thinks it will make a better society. On what judgment is that made? Always ethical grounds. A speed limit is set at 100kph because it is deemed dangerous to society to drive that vehicle above that speed on that road, to one's self and others. A seat belt law is passed for the same reason, and this is equally "intrusive." Don't you have a right not to wear a seat belt and endanger your life if you wish to? Not according to many nations. They deem it ethically wrong to stand by and allow you to ignore your own safety. They're certainly not worried about the driver of the car that hits you in that instance. If they have a seatbelt, they'll be fine no matter what happens to you. It's legislated morality. Even a leash law is legislated morality. It can't be avoided. All law is moral law. "All statecraft is soulcraft", as George Will aptly said.
So yes, this is moral legislation. All law is. But even if you could call this intrusion into her privacy, which I don't think you can, there are three people involved already, laws are legislated into privacy not infrequently as well. Is this bad? That must be judged on the basis of consistency with the ethics in view. We think it builds a safer and more just society to take a Pro-Life stand. So we will, we are prepared to sacrifice popularity for justice.
SG