On Wednesday, I mentioned that there are two potential ways for pro-choice advocates to avoid the contradiction they inevitably walk into when being outraged about the disproportionately high numbers of children aborted after being prenatally diagnosed with disabilities such as Down Syndrome and affirming a woman’s right to absolutely choose what to do with her own body.
I demonstrated on Wednesday that it doesn’t work out very well for a society that accepts the idea that the right to an abortion is an absolute right with no restrictions. I demonstrated how it is easy for a eugenic society to develop as a consequence of that idea. To their credit, most pro-choice advocates are outraged by eugenics, so they cannot choose this as their solution to that dilemma.
There is another choice.
These pro-choice advocates can say that this discrimination is real and provide some protection for the fetus. They can basically build in some exceptions to the rule. They can try to demonstrate why abortion is okay in certain situations but not okay in others.
By trying to escape one contradiction, they have jumped feet first into another fire.
It is easy to say that it is a great idea to create a law that bans abortions of children who have been prenatally diagnosed with any type of disability. It is harder to come up with a justification for why protecting unborn children with this particular disability should have any more rights than any other unborn child from a pro-choice perspective.
Therefore, this has developed into a giant mess for the pro-choice advocate. One injustice has been created by attempting to eliminate a different injustice. The privileged class has simply been moved to a different group, but there is no true equality here. Creating these types of exceptions based on certain characteristics only shifts the problem; it does nothing to solve the problem.
This is the challenge that the pro-choice advocate is faced with. If they want to affirm the right to abortion, they either have to allow every abortion or at least allow some abortions. However, through these posts, I have shown how both of these positions lead to irreconcilable contradictions when applied to the very real situation brought about by prenatal diagnoses.
You might be wondering though why the Christian pro-life position is actually consistent. After all, if all I am able to do is knock down the pro-choice position, then there needs to be something to replace it. I would like to propose that a specifically Christian pro-life platform adequately values human life and protects the true values of diversity and equality in a way that pro-choice advocates can only dream of justifying.