The Inalienable Right to Life

Brandon Spence, First Place Winner, Senior High Division, 2014 Pennsylvania Pro-Life Essay Contest

In 2011, the United States abortion rate reached its lowest level since 1973, the year the Supreme Court put the unborn child's right to life in the hands of its mother. While 30 years of steady decline since its peak in 1981 is something for pro-lifers to be proud of, the abortion rate is still at 16.9 percent. That is, 17 out of 100 pregnancies still end in abortion today, for a total of over 1 million intentionally terminated pregnancies annually. So, what is the source of dissonance? How can one human being condone abortion while another ardently opposes it? If human lives potentially hang in the balance, it is imperative that the issue be resolved with haste.

The first step is to look at the case that really stirred up the pot on the abortion issue. That is, of course, the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. In the court's opinion, Harry Blackmun cited the Fourteenth Amendment's primary section which asserts a person's unimpeded right to privacy. He explained that the government has no say in a decision belonging exclusively to the woman and her physician, and ergo cannot outlaw abortion. The source of controversy was the lack of consideration for the rights and humanity of the unborn child. If what's inside the woman's tummy is indeed a human being, then its right to life far outweighs a person's right to privacy. After all, having a guest in the privacy of your home does not give you the right to take his life.

Given that, we must ask ourselves, "Is that unborn child human?" Some people would argue that pregnancy is a parasite-host situation because of the fetus's dependency on the mother, and therefore conclude that a terminated pregnancy is hardly different than the removal of a parasite. Does the Statue of Liberty not don the phrase, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free ..."? We embrace the dependent.

Some also argue that a child must possess a beating heart or be sentient to be considered human. If physical condition and mental aptitude are prerequisites for a right to life, then there are many alive today who should not have it. Still others might argue that a fetus is to a person what a seed is to a plant or an egg to any oviparous animal. While this analogy is correct, the implication is not. The fact that a seed can be discarded with little concern does not translate over to an unborn child for the same reason logging doesn't translate to genocide. It is also implied that as an egg is not an animal, neither is a fetus. But they are. It is a biological fact that both are of the exact same species as their parents -- and that's what matters.

What if the pregnant woman is a victim of rape? There are an infinite number of tremendously difficult situations that could fit into such a category. There are few in which both the mother and the child come out unscathed. But even the worst-case scenario begs the question, "Does the impeding turmoil give a person the right to kill another?" In addition, many people acknowledge that abortion as a method of birth control is immoral, but can condone it in "complex" situations such as rape and incest. While the difference in these cases is more than transparent, what would it mean to forgive abortion in one case but not the other? It would be communicating that a person's right to life depends on the circumstances by which he or she was conceived, be it through love, by accident, or through violence.

The pro-choice stance appears, at a glance, to guarantee the kind of freedom we as Americans are proud to call our own. However, the liberty provided by giving a mother sole, unimpeded governance over the fate of her unborn child is only superficial. True freedom is founded upon the guarantee that the same right to life you and I hold dear belongs to every living human being, regardless of one's physical condition and the circumstances surrounding one's birth. There is simply no way to justify abortion without attempting to establish arbitrary criterion for a human being's right to life. I assert that the right to life is not conditional, but inalienable, and it is through recognition of the incongruity between the pro-choice stance and this self-evident truth that the sanctity of life and the most profound form of freedom may be secured.

For additional writing from members and associates of the St. Gabriel Respect Life group, see below:

https://stgabrielcarlisle.squarespace.com/our-pro-life-views-1/