L
ast semester, I was invited by a friend to watch the abortion documentary “Bloodmoney” in Phillips Auditorium. Having attended the March For Life protest in 2010, I was interested to see a good conservative case for the illegalization of abortion. Instead, I found a series of interviews almost exclusively about the “evidence of a racist agenda in Planned Parenthood” and the “testimony from women that abortions have triggered post traumatic stress disorder, suicidal depression, an inability to feel emotion, and other psychologically devastating effects.”
I walked out after 20 minutes.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with many of these claims. I agree that abortion hurts women, minorities, and families. However, by concentrating on these arguments, “Bloodmoney” essentially conceded the liberal case and ignored the fundamental issue at hand in the abortion debate: the definition of a human being.
By focusing on testimonial evidence from women who have had abortions, “Bloodmoney” gave liberals ground. They conceded that the woman is the object of the debate, that the woman’s pain is the reason we should oppose abortion — that the effect of abortion is evil, rather than the act of abortion itself.
Conservatives should oppose abortion because they believe the unborn baby is a member of the human race and they should be bold enough to define the child’s humanity. My dispute here is a matter of rhetorical means, not ends. Most pro-life citizens agree on the end: eliminate abortion in the United States. I simply want to see this brought about through arguments of definition rather than arguments based on consequences or circumstances, which are the liberal’s safe haven.
Conservatives must primarily argue against the act of abortion instead of the effect because 1) it is more conservative and therefore more philosophically honest, and 2) it is more persuasive.
According to Richard M. Weaver, the author of “Ideas Have Consequences,” there are two primary ways of arguing: “Those who argue from consequence tend to go all out for action; they are the ‘radicals.’ Those who prefer the argument from definition, as Lincoln did, are conservatives in the legitimate sense of the word.”
He illustrates what I mean by “liberal” and “conservative.” Liberals argue through the use of transient consequences and circumstances to scare one into action just as “Bloodmoney” did. But the conservative argues by defining something’s nature, the way Lincoln defined slavery as wrong because slaves are humans, in order to rationally move one to action. The latter is the legitimate means for eliminating abortion, but the former is the liberal’s means for wasting money, time, and most importantly, life.
This is the most philosophically honest approach because it deals with the skeleton in the closet that everyone knows about but is too afraid to address: the definition of “man.” Of all people, conservatives ought to take up this task of definition. Conservatives ought to be honest about their opposition to abortion, which does not primarily rest on the effects of maternal exploitation, racial inequality, or wherever the wind blows on Thursday.
It rests on the natural and divine law, “Thou shalt not kill.”
Conservatives should also argue against abortion via definition because it is more persuasive. I think it’s safe to say that virtually everyone in the United States believes murder is wrong and should therefore be outlawed. It’s written into our consciences. If conservatives can convince Americans that abortion is murder, then the case is won. The pro-choice advocate must defend the notion that the fetus — perhaps the most terrifying word in the English language — is not a human being. Otherwise, abortion is indubitably murder.
If the pro-choice advocate cannot distinguish between a murderer killing a toddler with a gun and a doctor killing a fetus with saline solution, then the case is won. Abortion is murder and the honest citizen cannot support the practice. Conservatives must force the liberal into this corner. The problem is not that the pro-choice movement doesn’t want to have this debate, the problem is that conservatives have folded their hand and decided to use the liberal’s cards instead.
This neglect for the definition of man not only leads to men without chests and the abolition of natural law, but the abolition of physical human beings.
