Pro-Life Not As Anti-Choice
P. Schultz
September 6, 2012
It has
become commonplace for those who are pro-life to think that this means, if
followed consistently, one must be anti-choice. That is, if one is in favor of
choosing life, then that same person must be for outlawing abortion, perhaps
even in cases of rape and/or incest. I submit that this is not necessary nor is
it even admirable.
As I
listened to Rick Santorum speak at the Republican convention about his
daughter, Bella, I was struck by his passion, his love for this daughter and
the strength of the love they shared. I did not hear a politician; I heard a
father, a man who loved with his whole heart, his whole being, his daughter.
And not a word about limiting choice; not a word about outlawing abortion; not
a word about regulating it in ways that stop just short of outlawing it. Nor, I
thought, were such words necessary. Rick Santorum had done in those moments
what I never thought he could do: He made me respect him, he made me admire
him, he made me applaud his and his wife’s choice or choices. And in those
moments he made me pro-life – or perhaps to be fairer to myself, he confirmed
my pro-life preferences.
There is, I
was reminded then, a pro-life rhetoric that is as powerful as any rhetoric I
have ever heard. It is the rhetoric that some like to draw on when they quote
the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, endowed by
their creator with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.” This is the kind of rhetoric that moves people, that directs
them and does so without the benefit of laws.
But further
this rhetoric need not lead and should not lead to an anti-choice imperative.
This rhetoric is so powerful that, if repeated and spoken as Santorum did it,
it need not lead to an anti-choice agenda. People will choose life more often
than not – but only if we speak a language and practice a politics of pro-life
not only consistently but freely. Hence, those who are pro-life should not be
anti-choice because it is our choices that define us. The opportunity to choose
is the opportunity to be virtuous, to practice virtue, here to choose life. A
choice constrained by law is not equivalent to an act performed freely, without
a legal obligation to perform it. Hence,
charity and welfare are two different phenomena because the one is given freely
while the other is a legal requirement, a legal bequest. Similarly, as
Aristotle noticed in his critique of Socratic communism, without private
property, human beings cannot practice generosity, as they would have nothing
to give to others freely and absent compulsion. Choice or freedom is absolutely
necessary for virtue to be practiced, for human beings to be, well, human
beings.
There is
something about a regime based on rights that propels a society toward legal
regulations because there is something about rights that enshrines or fortifies
self-interest. As a result it is thought that absent strong laws, self-interest
will prevail. But this could be wrong. The power of Rick Santorum’s rhetoric
makes me think it is wrong. If human beings are given a choice, a real choice,
between life and death, between love and self-interest, they will almost always
choose life and love over death and self-interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment