Comments on: Pro-Life v Pro-Choice: A Conservative Justification for a Third Option

By: Jarvinen

Jarvinen — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:50:59 +0000

The Supreme Court successfuly upheld the 2nd admendment. The only thing concerning about this case was that it ended up with a 5-4 majority.

By: Claudio Mowell

Claudio Mowell — Tue, 11 May 2010 22:11:14 +0000

I wrote a couple articles about the exact same topic but you seem to know a bit more about it than I do.

By: masonic symbols

masonic symbols — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:12:57 +0000

Considerably, the page is truly the best on this notable topic. I harmonize with your conclusions and will thirstily seem forward for your incoming updates. Just saying thank you can not just be adequate, for that wonderful clarity with your writing. I will immediately grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates. Delightful function and a lot achievement with your company efforts!

By: Alexa McDonough

Alexa McDonough — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:23:54 +0000

my God, i thought you were going to chip in with some decisive insght at the end there, not leave it with

By: B. Daniel

B. Daniel — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:38:52 +0000

Mr. Christopher, I see your essay as a scholarly piece and I believe a very useful analysis to support finding a way to bring together conservatives who agree on other important issues but have varying views on what “pro-life” means. If you will permit I would like to add my thoughts to this discussion. I am not breaking any new ground here but this is how I see it.
Two beliefs: 1) As a professional life science researcher I have no doubt that human life begins at fertilization — not debatable to me on the pure biological level (sperm penetration of the egg produces a complete genome in an omnipotent cell and yields a zygote – that is life — period). 2) The word for wanton, willful taking of an innocent, defenseless human life, e.g. a fetus, is murder.
But human existence itself is not perfect and choices sometimes need to be made and some choices are life and death decisions –they happen in war, in law enforcement, in legal executions, or also unfortunately, in the course of human procreation. For a human pregnancy the question of what morally justifies the “choice” to abort is the core of the debate.
I suggest that there are certainly gradations to what choices should be morally permitted. I, (like most?) would almost always agree with the moral validity of an abortion to save the life of the mother. I am less enthusiastic or flexible on abortions performed to end the pregnancy resulting from rape and incest – but by definition these are not planned pregnancies.
I am much less willing to agree with a decision to abort a fetus because genetic testing indicates certain or a likely fetal disease or malformation – but I agree this is a very difficult situation.
I totally reject the choice of an abortion because of some life style inconvenience, e.g., a change in life status or because the fetus is of the “wrong” sex.
So to me, as to most of us, all “choices” are not morally equivalent. The ultimate and most inhumane choice is infanticide – such as a “partial birth” abortion. This choice, in my opinion represents a nadir in the definition of humanity.
The Roe v. Wade decision of the SCOTUS also considered gradations and recognized a growing interest of the State in the welfare of rights of the fetus with the stage of gestation. This is something many pro-choice people prefer to ignore or refuse to discuss. In fact, most pro-abortion individuals really only look to Roe v. Wade as a “justification” for abortion (its legality) and refuse to acknowledge the restrictions.
But why would it be unreasonable for me, with my moral position clearly staked out, to place levels of acceptance toward conservative candidates based on what degree of choice they allow? I would never accept a candidate even conservative (limited governance, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, protection of our boarders etc.) who supports a partial birth abortion – or the kind of infanticide that results from allows a fetus surviving from a failed abortion to die under a towel – a position supported by President Obama for example.
On the other hand wouldn’t it be reasonable for me, and others, to prefer a conservative candidate that supports a reasonable definition of choice even one that is more tolerant than mine own limits or a candidate who truly accepts in all the elements of Roe v. Wade? These seems to me to be a middle ground that is not firmly pro-life but not an unfettered pro-choice either.
This seems like the level of “moral compromise” that I can live with. I guess another way to say it is I can see a moral reason to support a conservative who will favor policies that do impose a certain level of restriction on abortion as to one who has an unqualified pro-abortion position. Fewer abortions are not as desirable as the absence of abortion but I chose this over more abortions.
Some will take acceptation to this kind of morality. But I believe that demanding a “perfect” world or candidate in this matter will insure that we move increasingly away from a “good” world. In a “good world” we can rationally work with people of good will to reach a more perfect world.
Staying home and refusing to accept or vote for a less than perfect conservative – on all issues – it the Achilles tendon of conservatives. You can but rarely have “everything”.

By: Me

Me — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:44:17 +0000

Good points, I think I will definitely subscribe! I’ll go and read some more! What do you see the future of this being?

By: T. CHRISTOPHER

T. CHRISTOPHER — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:07:18 +0000

Well I certainly appreciate your comment and the courage for someone to admit that they are a moderate democrat around these parts. I have to tell you that while I love to destroy moderate Dem’s who hold public office, if you are a college student there is still hope for you. At least you have not fallen too far to the Left for us to ever be able to pull you back.

As to your comment, I appreciate your sentiments. As a Pro-Life Republican I find myself frequently frustrated with the similarly situated as they are unwilling to even open a dialog on this issue bc they fear it will lead to a tidal wave of abortions. I simply think that selfishly and stubbornly puts what is perceived as principle ahead of the most important interest of all – protecting innocent life. If we cannot engage in political discussion with those we disagree with on the issue that most Americans put near the top of their list, how can we ever expect to find a solution to this problem?

By: Moderate Democrat

Moderate Democrat — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:05:05 +0000

I found your article very interesting. While I am pro-choice, I do not consider myself to be pro-abortion. As with other issues, I find it interesting this third idea of someone who opposes the ban of abortion but would not consider getting one if the occasion arose. Until conservatives and liberals start to agree to compromise on issues, I am stuck here in the middle being a half assed pro choice college student.

By: T. CHRISTOPHER

T. CHRISTOPHER — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:08:06 +0000

Thanks Charles. And yes, I absolutely considered the 10th Amendment analysis. I agree with you that many characterize that as the libertarian position. If you were to look at the link at the bottom of my page I think you will find a similar argument there.

I could spend half a day in a room with someone who shares that position and not get anywhere frankly. Not that either of us is wrong – its just that both of us could not be right. For the sake of this argument, I needed to get past that point as the results are not all that dissimilar if you get past that point and choose a forum -at least in theory / in practicality maybe not.

Its essentially a 1st Amendment issue either place as the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment made 1A applicable to the states as well.

I don’t know that it was that detrimental to leave out but I probably should have mentioned it. I thought about squeezing it in, but as you can see I am long winded and it would take a while. I know it would have in all likelihood pleased my libertarian friends to have seen it there, but they weren’t exactly the target audience on this one.

By: Charles M

Charles M — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:55:33 +0000

I like the post but did you think about addressing the 10th amendment debate that some call the libertarian position? I am a believer that this is a states rights issue and belongs in the 50.