Amir Azarvan
Commentary:
We in the pro-life movement may one day come to reminisce about the days when the fetus was described as a mere “clump of cells,” for often implicit in this otherwise false description was the recognition that if the fetus was more than this: if it was acknowledged to be a human being, then it merited protection. The effort to present the fetus as nothing more than a parasite or a bundle of cells often stemmed from this recognition.
You see, most people across the abortion divide shared a moral and epistemological foundation on which abortion could be meaningfully debated. They officially agreed on the concept of human rights – the idea that you are entitled to certain rights by virtue of the fact that you are a human. Accordingly, the abortion debate turned on the question of when human life (and thus the human right to life) began. If one could convincingly argue that it began at conception, then he could theoretically win the argument. Perhaps this shared foundation explains the ease with which I was able to have a beer with abortion rights advocates without the evening ending in a brawl.
Today, however, a growing number of “pro-choice” advocates appear to be abandoning the commitment to human rights, in which case the question of when human life begins is regarded as a loaded one. “Who cares if the fetus is human?” you may increasingly hear. “That fact, alone, doesn’t entitle it to life.” The implicit assumption behind such statements is that human life lacks intrinsic value. The “virtue” of this response is that it avoids the charge of being logically contradictory, at least with respect to the specific issue of abortion. After all, advocating for the right to kill an unborn child is perfectly (albeit diabolically) consistent with the belief that human life has no inherent value.
The drawback, of course, is that this logic implies that there is no moral basis to many of the causes that the Left normally champions. On what basis do we so passionately and unequivocally condemn torture if humans, as such, do not deserve better treatment? In what sense do “black lives matter” if human life lacks intrinsic value? The inescapable conclusion of this logic is that no one’s life ultimately matters.
Of course, the new “pro-choice” generation will not draw these logical conclusions, for they do not see themselves bound by logic. Not only do they deny the inherent worth of human life, but they also deny the value – or even the reality – of truth and logic. These pro-choice nihilists are significantly more likely to eschew belief in a god who will one day hold them morally accountable. Thus, they believe that they can hold irreconcilable positions with spiritual impunity – feigning support for human rights in one instance, and disregarding them in another. The only constant is the will to power or desire for revolutionary euphoria. With such people it is decidedly more difficult to have a beer (at a minimum, drinks would be on them).
My opponents might object that I am relying on a slippery slope argument. Unlike post-birth humans (with the possible exception of newborns who survive their abortions), fetuses are not entitled to life because they lack “bodily autonomy.” This vile argument begs the following question: why does the fact of being dependent on another entail that one is worthy of destruction, instead of protection? Such a barbaric view strikes at the heart of what makes a society civilized: compassion for the most vulnerable.
Further, this argument draws a superficial distinction among humans. Is a one day-old infant autonomous? True, she is no longer tied to her mother by an umbilical cord. But can she feed herself? For that matter, are any of us truly autonomous? Have you grown your own food, sewn your own clothes, or built your own shelter? How would you fare you if those who have provided you with these and other material necessities suddenly vanished? As it turns out, then, this argument does not provide a basis for a coherent “pro-choice” position.
No, I am not suggesting that we abandon dialogue with abortion rights advocates, even if their willingness to reason has diminished. However, we must not naïvely think that we can debate our way out of this crisis. We must also put pressure on our leaders to respond effectively to violence from pro-choice extremists, should Roe v. Wade be overturned. Even an elected official has issued “a call to arms.” (To those who wish to downplay the significance of this tweet, I am sorry, but now is not the time for figurative language.) Beyond appealing to their minds, our government must be willing to strike fear in their hearts. If our leaders are not prepared to uphold the law – if they remain unwilling to use proportionate force to suppress violence – then they may come to regret their support of Roe’s overturning. Indeed, the recent leak from Supreme Court may ironically prove to be a gift for the Far Left, as it may embolden radicals to take measures that hasten the demise of our constitutional republic.
Dr. J.A. Azarvan is an associate professor of political science at Georgia Gwinnett College in Lawrenceville, Georgia, and the author of Re-Introducing Christianity: An Eastern Apologia for a Western Audience
