Last week, the student organization UMass Students for Life, a group of which I am a member, arranged flags in a display next to the Student Union. Each flag represented one million children that have been lost through abortions since the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Roe v. Wade case in 1973.
Abortion is a subject that creates strong emotions on the entire spectrum of ideological opinion, although there is a wide swath of people who are indifferent on the matter. This amount of indifference would not be surprising in the case of most political issues, though it is somewhat telling in the case of abortion.
The issue is a serious one because it reveals much about the character of a society and a civilization. The way that a civilization treats its citizens shows much about what it holds most dear.
Western civilization in general ‘- and
The ethical issues that are often raised tend to focus on material concerns. People will lobby government for cash bailouts to corporations or cash transfers to private individuals. These transfers from the taxpayers to other citizens do not result in any underlying change in the attitudes of the people. These transfers only sever the link between individuals and families.
In order for community to be built, there needs to be a genuine relationship among community members that will only result if people are truly dependent on each other in a significant way. This is not to say that we ought to have a communal takeover of the economy. Rather, we ought to get to the point where we care about neighbors so much that we want to ensure their wellbeing.
This here is where we extend this understanding to the issue of the personhood of the unborn child. By placing an immeasurable value on human life at this early stage, we take a strong stance in favor of protecting our neighbors in distress. It strengthens the resolve of our communities to set firm boundaries on what can and cannot be considered permissible behavior.
The worth of all human life is not simply measured by how we treat the unborn, but the elderly, the sick and the disabled. These issues are all intimately connected. If an unborn child can be terminated at the choice of an adult human being, there is no reason that the quality of life of an elderly or disabled person cannot also be deemed not worthwhile enough to preserve.
We may even suggest that young infants are not in the category of those who are truly living. These assertions can lead to disastrous results if we do not act firm in setting the boundaries in defense of all life.
In one sense, all of humanity seeks something that gives worth to itself. But this worth can only come from outside of us. We are all in the state of the unborn child, the elderly, the sick and the disabled. Our worth as measured by society is based entirely on our material accomplishments in this world.
These material accomplishments are fleeting. If we judge certain life to be not worth saving, then we are judging ourselves as well. If we can choose life or death issues for someone else, then upon what grounds can we truly say that another person might not choose life or death for us?
There are objections to this line of reasoning. Some will claim that sententiousness, the recognition of the world around us, is the prerequisite to having a claim to the protections of life. This line of argument presupposes that the only life worth saving is based on what self-satisfactory value it has for us.
Many argue that, if preserving the life of young human beings is important, then why not the life of other species, especially chimpanzees and bonobos? These are important concerns; however, simply because there is a deficiency in one area, does not invalidate the cause itself. There is also an inherent dignity in being human that is simply not shared with other species.‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
A similar argument is made concerning government services to the poor. It is posed as to why those in favor of life would not support massive services to poor mothers. This is an important concern, but it fails to account for the deeds of private individuals in this cause, and, again, this does not address the issue of life itself.
If we look at this matter away from our own personal self-interest and try to see things in the way that is ideal for our children and our communities, we will realize the necessity for laws protecting the unborn. It requires an extraordinary amount of sacrifice on our part, but we all must work together to resolve this divisive issue.
Eric Magazu is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].
