There seem to me to be several principles that govern the mentality of pro-abortion lobbyists (other than perhaps being in the pockets of the pro-abortion industry). Many of these, I think, are assumed unconsciously. I want to identify them, bring them into the light, and then analyze them from my perspective. Again, I doubt too many pro-abortion advocates would (or perhaps could) state these aloud, but I believe they are the underlying “values” that are thought to support their view.
Principle #1–The child in the womb (even at 9 months) is not a human person because we have legally declared him/her not a human person. [This was the same rationalization that European colonists used to justify enslaving Native Americans. I am NOT belittling these evils; I am only observing the identity of the rationalizing process.].
Principle #2–It’s my body and therefore my choice. [There is no problem here: except that your choice isn’t about your body—it’s the destruction of the body of someone else, and this is the problem. If this were not the case, the slaying of a pregnant woman would not be able to be tried in court as a double-homicide. Recently, a child was taken from the womb, operated on to correct a spina bifida, and returned to the womb. I believe this operation was primarily aimed at someone else’s body, not the mother’s—even though she was clearly involved.].
Principle #3–Since there is no objective truth, and therefore no objective right or wrong, I can determine for myself whatever I want, to grant for myself what I regard as fulfillment for me. [This goes back especially to the post-WWII French existentialists and to some extent carried further by the post-modernists. Of course, the fact that you can reason at all argues that there IS such a thing as objective truth, and therefore objective morality…].
Principle #4–It’s too tiny to matter; it’s only a blob of tissue; it doesn’t feel any pain. [This is a version of Principle #1, really. But it’s the logic of bullies and a rationalization for destroying the natural consequences of one’s own actions/choices (see Principle #5). Of course, when you get to the point of heart-beat, and when we’re talking 3rd trimester (as the law in New York now permits), these “arguments” are nonsense.].
Principle #5–This is about women’s reproductive rights. [No, it’s actually about women’s rights of freedom of sexual activity—if the “evidence” of what I’ve done is inconvenient, let’s have the freedom to get rid of it. If a family truly cannot “afford” another child, there is another “A-word”, after all—adoption.].
Principle #6–Sexual activity is finally about recreation. [No—it’s far more sacred than that, and the fact that the natural end of intercourse is the conception of a child—another unique human person—shows why that’s the case. Sexual activity in marriage is not finally a form of hedonism but of “Holy Communion,” even when celebrated primarily for the sake of joy].
Principle #7–Sometimes there is no good choice. [Perhaps, but to celebrate rather than lament the choice of an evil in such a context is a moral mistake. If it is indeed an “exception,” it is one that proves (= tests and confirms) the rule; it does not become the rule.].