Why just “Let the Woman Choose” is not OK

At the end of last Tuesday night’s VP debate, each candidate candidly shared about not only their faith, but also how that faith influences their position on abortion.  Mr. Pence shared how his Christian faith made him stand firmly against abortion…especially the late-term partial-birth abortion and the tax-payer funding of abortion.  Mr. Kaine, on the other hand, shared that while he, as a Catholic, was personally pro-life, he did not think that his faith should be a rule for others.  He looked pointedly at Mr. Pence and asked, “Why can’t you just let the woman choose?  Can’t you trust the woman to make that choice?”

While Mr. Kaine can personally claim to be pro-life, yet still support unlimited, unrestricted abortion-on-demand as his political platform, many of us in the pro-life camp can not accept that stance.  We, like Mr. Pence in the debate, cannot “just let the woman choose”.  Mr. Kaine thinks that he is imposing his religion on others if he limits or prohibits abortion in any way.  However, to explain my pro-life position, I am not going to “impose my religion“ on everyone else.  However, I am going to impose my humanity.

When a woman walks in to an abortion clinic, there are two sets of dna existing in her body; there are two living organisms of cells; there are two beating hearts. But, if the abortionist succeeds, when the woman walks out, the dna, living cells, and beating heart all belong to one person.  While in the clinic, a death has occurred, a life has ceased, a beating heart stops.

But, this life is inside the woman!  It was created in her!  She is the one who has to bear the nine months of physical toll culminating in the extreme event of childbirth to continue this unwanted pregnancy!  You don’t know her circumstances!

While all of the above statements are (often heartrendingly) true,  we, as human beings, have always had some things to say when it comes to the taking of other human lives within our communities.  There are very few instances where we put the entire decision to end a life completely in the hands of a single person.  For example, we do grant law enforcement officers the right to take another life in order to protect themselves or others.  However, even then, we don’t give them complete autonomy.  They must be able to prove that the killing was justified–that their own or other lives were in danger.  We demand video tapes and witnesses that substantiate the “necessity” of the killing.  And based on recent events in this country, we can see that we wouldn’t want it any other way.  Also, the law allows each citizen the right to protect themselves in acts of self defense in the event of hostile attacks or property invasions.  Yet, even then, we examine the case before courts of law to ascertain that there was, indeed, an actual danger to the life of the one invoking that right.

There have been times when lone individuals were granted permission to take another life in our country.  Slavery was one such time.  Since slaves were purchased as property, a slave owner had the right to kill his own slaves.  However, because slaves were expensive, the slave owners did not want to “eliminate” their “investments” too frequently.

Even today, in some countries/ religions around the world, honor killings of women by family members (usually fathers or husbands) are considered right and acceptable.  The statistics cited in the linked article suggest that perhaps 20,000 women are killed in the name of “family honor” each year worldwide for “infractions” such as not obeying their husbands, not agreeing to an arranged marriage, or being sexually assaulted by another male.  The head of the family– the husband or father–has the sole authority to take the life of a woman in his household (in this way of thinking).  But, even in these situations, the family as a whole usually offers some input or advice on the decision.

I hope that you agree with me that both the slave owner killing his slave and the husband/father killing his wife/daughter are abominable.  Inhumane.  In both of these instances, a single person has/had the right to end the life of a person under their authority.  Both the slave and the woman were/are considered property owned by the master/ male authority.  In each of these cases, within the limited circle of either the times of slavery or the culture of honor killings, the murder of another human being seemed right, justified, and necessary to the person in authority.  Yet, in both situations, there were outside groups– abolitionists and human rights activists– that cried out against these deaths.

Now, back to the pregnant woman who is deciding whether or not to “terminate” her pregnancy under Mr. Kaine’s platform of “trust the woman to decide”.  Although the unborn child within her has two parents, current abortion laws leave the decision solely in her hands.  Unlike even the horrible honor killings that occur in the world, parents, families, society at large equally have no say as to the life or death of the child. Furthermore, even though the slave owners at least had financial incentives to not kill “too many” of their slaves, the taxpayer payment for abortions seeks to remove any financial hurdle from the one making the decision.

The current Democratic abortion policy platform of “let the woman choose” gives the pregnant woman autonomy over the separate life within her with no checks and balances, no family oversight, no limits as to timing, and even no financial barriers.   Within the confines of the pregnant woman in crisis making her decision, abortion–ending a life–seems to be a right choice.  Like the slave owner killing the unproductive slave.  Like the husband killing the rebellious wife.  Just as the slave and the wife were/are considered “owned property” with no rights of its own, the separate life within the woman is seen, under “let the woman choose”, as the “woman’s property”.  She alone can decide to continue the life or end it.

But, as a fellow human, I submit to you that each of these deaths of “property”–the slave, the wife, the unborn child– are atrocious to our humanity.  A life should never be completely subject to the choice of one person — with no oversight, no restrictions, and no accountability.  Thus, like the abolitionists who could not just “let the slave owner choose”; like the human rights groups who can not just “let the husband choose”; when it comes to unborn life, we, like Mr. Pence, can not “just let the woman choose.”

Note:  For those who think the only arguments for being pro-life are religious, google “non-religious pro-life.”  There are many atheists, even, who are pro-life because of science and because of humanity.

Also, I am a Christian, and my religion does speak many things into this debate, however for this article, I wanted to make the case from a human perspective, regardless of religious beliefs.

With Joy,

Kathleen